First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands

[Ebowed]

Can somebody tell me how this trio's marriage really has any relevance to the daily lives of us Americans?  I haven't actually met any of them.

Well, it is posted in the International General Discussion forum.

[KillerPollo]

Incest?  Who the hell would want to marry their sibling?  Anyone that would be attracted to a family member needs to get somepsychoanalytic treatment before it gets to marraige.

Ok, then who the hell would want to marry someone of their own sex? Anyone that would be attracted to someone of the same sex, needs to get some psychoanalytical treatment as well.

[parody]You can't win, MaC! If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine[/parody]

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That proves me right with the once-called fallacy of the slippery slope.
See what I meant? and most of you, especially the pro-gay, and pro-death activists here who blindly ridiculed my statements, and tried to mock my words, have been proved wrong by a theory come true.

The Netherlands' doom is now irreversible. It will become the world's biggest free-for-all orgy and the hellhole of Europe.

Next in line: Bob and his dog Cassie!

After that: Jack and Jill, close siblings of each other.

The sad part is I can't even tell if this is parody or not.

It sounds as stupid as Senator Cornyn's box turtle comment.

Comments like that are the reason Democrats lose election with such frequency.

Attacking that retarded comment by Cornyn? What's so horrible about that?

[MaC]

Incest?  Who the hell would want to marry their sibling?  Anyone that would be attracted to a family member needs to get some psychoanalytic treatment before it gets to marraige.

Ok, then who the hell would want to marry someone of their own sex? Anyone that would be attracted to someone of the same sex, needs to get some psychoanalytical treatment as well.

[parody]You can't win, MaC! If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine[/parody]

Incest with a family member leads to complications within the family structure.  If two homosexual people marry, they have the option of never having to deal with their families, provided their family isn't supportive of them.

[parody]Your powers are weak old man.[/parody]

[Joe Republic]

Can somebody tell me how this trio's marriage really has any relevance to the daily lives of us Americans?  I haven't actually met any of them.

Well, it is posted in the International General Discussion forum.

Given.  I'll rephrase it:

Can somebody tell me how this trio's marriage really has any relevance to anybody else?  None of us have ever met any of them, or are likely to, so why should any of us care what they do?

[KillerPollo]

Can somebody tell me how this trio's marriage really has any relevance to the daily lives of us Americans?  I haven't actually met any of them.

Well, it is posted in the International General Discussion forum.

Given.  I'll rephrase it:

Can somebody tell me how this trio's marriage really has any relevance to anybody else?  None of us have ever met any of them, or are likely to, so why should any of us care what they do?

Because it is a controversial issue... And for doing that they are being trollish to the mainstream media, meaning they got attention.

[MaC]

KillerPollo.  Everyone knows that marriage is between a man and a woman.  This is obviously not a real marriage, so there's really no reason to worry about how it's ruining marriage for everyone else.  If you don't realize it already, most people would consider this act fake and a joke.  So, society isn't going to crumble if you just enjoy the joke and laugh at it, rather than getting angry about it.

[KillerPollo]

KillerPollo.  Everyone knows that marriage is between a man and a woman.  This is obviously not a real marriage, so there's really no reason to worry about how it's ruining marriage for everyone else.  If you don't realize it already, most people would consider this act fake and a joke.  So, society isn't going to crumble if you just enjoy the joke and laugh at it, rather than getting angry about it.

I NEVER said I was angry about it!

[Gabu]

Can somebody tell me how this trio's marriage really has any relevance to the daily lives of us Americans?  I haven't actually met any of them.

Well, it is posted in the International General Discussion forum.

Given.  I'll rephrase it:

Can somebody tell me how this trio's marriage really has any relevance to anybody else?  None of us have ever met any of them, or are likely to, so why should any of us care what they do?

Because knowing that someone out there is in a relationship that is not one man with one woman apparently makes all heterosexual married couples get divorces.

I'm still waiting to hear the explanation for why this is going to cause the downfall of civilization.

[Alcon]

That proves me right with the once-called fallacy of the slippery slope.
See what I meant? and most of you, especially the pro-gay, and pro-death activists here who blindly ridiculed my statements, and tried to mock my words, have been proved wrong by a theory come true.

The Netherlands' doom is now irreversible. It will become the world's biggest free-for-all orgy and the hellhole of Europe.

Next in line: Bob and his dog Cassie!

After that: Jack and Jill, close siblings of each other.

The sad part is I can't even tell if this is parody or not.

It sounds as stupid as Senator Cornyn's box turtle comment.

Comments like that are the reason Democrats lose election with such frequency.

No.  The American public preferring the Republican candidates is why, not mediocre comparisons to humourous quotes involving gay people and box turtles.

This is an unusually stupid topic.

[MaC]

I'm still waiting to hear the explanation for why this is going to cause the downfall of civilization.

Exactly

I'd like to hear Killerpollo make a good, sound, legitimate agrument about this.

[freek]

OK, as I am Dutch I hope I can give some clarification. This caused quite some uproar in the country. In parliament questions have been asked about it, and it is expected that the minister of Justice will forbid that more than two people can sign such a "cohabitation contract", because that is what it is. The contract these three people signed doesn't have that much value. You are not considered married when you sign it, nor is it a civil union.

It is a contract for people living together in one house. It states who owns the furniture and the television etc, so it can save you from fights when you are separating.

And as for moral decay since same sex marriages were legalized five years ago, I haven't noticed it. . In fact, I think it is going the opposite way. More back to basics. However, same sex marriages will stay. A large majority is positive about it.

[Blue Rectangle]

OK, as I am Dutch I hope I can give some clarification. This caused quite some uproar in the country. In parliament questions have been asked about it, and it is expected that the minister of Justice will forbid that more than two people can sign such a "cohabitation contract", because that is what it is. The contract these three people signed doesn't have that much value. You are not considered married when you sign it, nor is it a civil union.

It is a contract for people living together in one house. It states who owns the furniture and the television etc, so it can save you from fights when you are separating.

And as for moral decay since same sex marriages were legalized five years ago, I haven't noticed it. . In fact, I think it is going the opposite way. More back to basics. However, same sex marriages will stay. A large majority is positive about it.

Can two people cohabitate without signing a contract?  What is the government's role in these contracts?  Does the government actually regulate cohabitation?

[freek]

Can two people cohabitate without signing a contract? 

Sure. But it can cause problems. For example when a man rents a house. His girlfriend later moves in with him. When they don't have such a contract, and the man dies, it is possible the girlfriend is forced to leave the house because the tenant is dead. It is legal proof two people are living together, but it is not considered to be a marriage. It just gives some securities.

Children born in a couple with such a contract automatically receive the mother's family name, not the father's, because they are not married.

In fact the contract was invented for people who didn't want to get married. Gay people have used these contracts also since the contracts were invented (in the 70s?).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They acknowledge it, because it is a legal contract.  There is a law which says what demands there are for such a contract. They seem to have forgotten to write down that these contracts are only meant for couples, not threesomes. .

The government also advises that unmarried couples sign a cohabitation contract, because you proof that you actually live together. But also a brother and a sister can sign such a contract, or a father and a son (over 18 years).

[Blue Rectangle]

Can two people cohabitate without signing a contract? 

Sure. But it can cause problems. For example when a man rents a house. His girlfriend later moves in with him. When they don't have such a contract, and the man dies, it is possible the girlfriend is forced to leave the house because the tenant is dead. It is legal proof two people are living together, but it is not considered to be a marriage. It just gives some securities.

Children born in a couple with such a contract automatically receive the mother's family name, not the father's, because they are not married.

In fact the contract was invented for people who didn't want to get married. Gay people have used these contracts also since the contracts were invented (in the 70s?).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They acknowledge it, because it is a legal contract.  There is a law which says what demands there are for such a contract. They seem to have forgotten to write down that these contracts are only meant for couples, not threesomes. .

The government also advises that unmarried couples sign a cohabitation contract, because you proof that you actually live together. But also a brother and a sister can sign such a contract, or a father and a son (over 18 years).

So does the government require that there are certain clauses in the contract?

It is pretty clear that the cohabitation contract has nothing to do with sexual relationships.  I don't see what the fuss is about.

[freek]

So does the government require that there are certain clauses in the contract?

Yes. A legal contract states that partners plan to live together in one house for a longer period (the department of justice calls it a "durable relationship"), and that they have a joint household.

Also it should at least contain the (financial) rights and duties of every partner in this household (for example: who pays what, and will there be a joint bank account). And that's about everything.

Usually (>99%) it also contains articles about what should happen if one of the partners dies, or if they split up, and some other stuff, but only about financial matters. But these are optional.

Essentially it is some kind of marriage-contract, without a marriage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is some fuss about it because this loophole in the law can be seen as a first step towards legalisation of polygamy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I personally see no problem with polygamy, so long as all of the members of the marriage are agreeable.  (Bigamy however, is just plain wrong.) However, the legalization of polygamy will require all sorts of adjustments to laws concerning spousal benefits and the tax advantages of marriage.  I expect that such provisions will be changed to be dependent-centric rather than spousal-centric.  And last, but not least, such adjustments need to be made by the legislative process, not by judicial fiat.

[Democratic Hawk]

Greedy git, one woman is enough! I wonder who becomes the first woman to marry two blokes

Dave

[Buckwheat]

I'm still waiting to hear the explanation for why this is going to cause the downfall of civilization.

I'll attempt (probably in vain) to make this short.  As a note before I start, I am strongly in favor of Civil Unions and reluctantly against gay Marriage for reasons specified below.
It won't particularly be the ultimate cause for the downfall of civilization but it will most certainly play a large role in the dcay of moral America.  I ask everyone to look back to the 1950s when people started really noticing that some people are homosexual.  It was extremely frowned upon and very taboo to discuss it.  Now, fast forward to the 1970s and it still remains a taboo subject but is generally accepted as existing within America.  Now, if you look at the 1990s, homosexuality was becoming a generic part of America but the thought of homosexual couples was still somewhat taboo as were couples of more than two people.  Couples of more than two people were becoming increasingly common by the 1990s as well but is well behind homosexuality in becoming a widespread "concept".
Now, the idea of homosexuality has been around for much longer than the idea of polygamy and has therefor been able to work its way into American life sooner than polygamy.  If homosexual couples are granted the right to be married, then the moral line defining marriage has been erased and redrawn for a certain group of people.  Those people having the line redrawn for them, expect other moral lines to also be redrawn, thereby growing the amount of things socially accepted and known to be morally "right".  Once one group has the lines redrawn, the more other groups expect the same equal treatment, also claiming "Civil Rights" have something to do with it.  The more groups that have that line redrawn for them in several different directions, the more broad America's morals become and the less defined they become, thus rendering them a thing of the past.  The more expanded the line of accepted concepts becomes, the harder it is to refuse more expansions to other groups in other situations.
The more groups that force the moral lines to encompass them, the less the word "morals" means.  If we accept gay marriage and polygamy, the more unfair to other groups it will become to deny them a redrawing of moral lines.  Back to the 1970s, people were fighting for the right for homosexuals not to be frowned upon by societies morals and never imagined they would get any further than that.  The further people get with pushing the lines of morals, the more they want to go even further.

[jokerman]

I really could careless, simply because Europe (or perhaps Western Civ in Europe) is on the decline anyway, and will probably be engulfed by the muslims anyway.

If it's in America, then I care.

Frogjuice sums up many of my cocerns.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now, the idea of homosexuality has been around for much longer than the idea of polygamy and has therefor been able to work its way into American life sooner than polygamy.

It's obvious why you have a VT avatar rather than a UT avatar, if you can say this and mean it.

[Alcon]

Now, the idea of homosexuality has been around for much longer than the idea of polygamy and has therefor been able to work its way into American life sooner than polygamy.

It's obvious why you have a VT avatar rather than a UT avatar, if you can say this and mean it.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[Jens]

I really could careless, simply because Europe (or perhaps Western Civ in Europe) is on the decline anyway, and will probably be engulfed by the muslims anyway.

If it's in America, then I care.

Frogjuice sums up many of my cocerns.

yet another utterly silly "Europe is Declining" What on Earth do you base that on.
Birth rates? the funny thing is that 2nd generation immigrant (muslim or not) birth rates are quite similar to the ordinary European - oh and not all West European countries have declining birth rates

The claim that Europe will be "engulfed by Muslims" is just plain stupid!

[Democratic Hawk]

I really could careless, simply because Europe (or perhaps Western Civ in Europe) is on the decline anyway, and will probably be engulfed by the muslims anyway.

Over my dead body

Dave

[Buckwheat]

Now, the idea of homosexuality has been around for much longer than the idea of polygamy and has therefor been able to work its way into American life sooner than polygamy.

It's obvious why you have a VT avatar rather than a UT avatar, if you can say this and mean it.

I am aware of the existence of polygamy in Utah but the fact remains that almost all polygamous couples are IN Utah proving my point that the concept has not spread as extensively as homosexuality.