First 3-way Marriage in the Netherlands!

[Nat Turner]

I bet Massachusetts will beat out Utah for first legalizing polygamous civil unions in the US.

First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/
From the desk of Paul Belien on Tue, 2005-09-27 00:08
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.”

 

[Qonfused]

That's it, the world's going to hell.

:|

 

[Gray Fox]

Don't you people on the US have mormons that have like 10 wifes.

 

[Qonfused]

No, but cult's are kinda like marriages.
Don't drink the punch.

 

[Ikerous]

Don't you people on the US have mormons that have like 10 wifes.

In utah mostly, but only one woman can be legally married to the guy
And i dont really see any problem with poligamy, so yay!

 

[Ren.182]

Thats one lucky guy.

 

[ríomhaire]

I see no problem with this as long as all 3 are happy but I don't see that marrige working out in the long run.

 

[Ames]

Oh that crazy Victor de Bruijn and his harem of women.

 

[kirovman]

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're all my women! They belong to me!

Pologamy can't be legal, because it would inevitably lead to a shortage of one of the sexes. I guess it would lead to a shortage of women. And you know what that means? Revolution, probably.

As utopian for many men as it sounds, it just isn't practical.

 

[Nat Turner]

Pologamy can't be legal, because it would inevitably lead to a shortage of one of the sexes. I guess it would lead to a shortage of women. And you know what that means? Revolution, probably.

Your conclusions are absurd and false, because the marriages are not forced. Women don't belong to anyone, and shouldn't be forced to marry or not marry for the "good of society".

 

[Shakermaker]

These are some ugly people


He looks very happy tho, and so do his women. I don't mind, let them do what they want.

 

[Javert]

I'm not one to judge, but that's just weird.

 

[kirovman]

Your conclusions are absurd and false, because the marriages are not forced. Women don't belong to anyone, and shouldn't be forced to marry or not marry for the "good of society".

Why? Do you have the stats to prove otherwise? It is a possibility, and should certainly not be dismissed as an absurdity without study to back it up. I just brought this idea into the arena for discussion, and you dismiss it outright as false.

I just say that because there's probably going to be a lot of men out there wanting 2 or more wives. Of course women are not objects, but look at society over history, it's usually men who get all the wives in polygamy. It spits in the face of sexual equality in some ways. If everyone engaged in polygamy, we'd be in big trouble in terms of society.

And even if not, someone is going to end up hurt by that relationship. One person will end up being rejected by the other two. I don't see how such a relationship should be sustainable.

Although I'm not an expert on 3 way love, let's hear your view.

 

[Nat Turner]

Why? Do you have the stats to prove otherwise? It is a possibility, and should certainly not be dismissed as an absurdity without study to back it up. I just brought this idea into the arena for discussion, and you dismiss it outright as false.

And I brought my dismissive opinion of your idea into the arena for discussion, also. You are the one who must provide stats to prove your side.

I just say that because there's probably going to be a lot of men out there wanting 2 or more wives. Of course women are not objects, but look at society over history, it's usually men who get all the wives in polygamy. It spits in the face of sexual equality in some ways. If everyone engaged in polygamy, we'd be in big trouble in terms of society.

No we wouldn't be in any trouble, not everyone is required to be married. If a man wants two wives, and those two women agree, then everything is fine. Most people would still be monogomous, probably. Lots of single men would remain single. There is no problem here. Do you see guys wanting a revolution because they're ugly and fat and can't get into a normal marriage? Because there is a shortage of good women who are attracted to an ugly fat guy? No.

I do not need evidence, because it's common sense. I don't wear a tinfoil hat, like you do, claiming all these absurd notions about revolution when nothing has even taken place! Oh.. well if 3 people can get married, the next guy's going to marry a tree, or his ship! That's actually more believable than what you have stated.

Your mind is a mess of illogical nonsense. The sad part is that people might believe you, which is why I must refute your statements.

And even if not, someone is going to end up hurt by that relationship. One person will end up being rejected by the other two. I don't see how such a relationship should be sustainable.

Then maybe they shouldn't have married eachother! They chose to, didn't they? Doesn't mean you shouldn't let them marry like a parent guards their children. These are grown adults we're talking about, people who can make their own decisions.

 

[OCybrManO]

These are some ugly people

Damn you. Why did you have to go and ruin the wonderful image in my head with that crap?

 

[Dan]

Well, there's a bit more women than men, something like 51 or 52% is women. Mostly because they have longer life span I guess. And then subtract all of the gay male couples, which there are probably more of than gay female couples. Each gay male couple means allows for 2 polygamous 3-way couples. So if we had more gay marriages we could have more 3-way marriages too.

 

[kirovman]

And I brought my dismissive opinion of your idea into the arena for discussion, also. You are the one who must provide stats to prove your side.

No we wouldn't be in any trouble, not everyone is required to be married. If a man wants two wives, and those two women agree, then everything is fine. Most people would still be monogomous, probably. Lots of single men would remain single. There is no problem here. Do you see guys wanting a revolution because they're ugly and fat and can't get into a normal marriage? Because there is a shortage of good women who are attracted to an ugly fat guy? No.

I do not need evidence, because it's common sense. I don't wear a tinfoil hat, like you do, claiming all these absurd notions about revolution when nothing has even taken place! Oh.. well if 3 people can get married, the next guy's going to marry a tree, or his ship! That's actually more believable than what you have stated.

Your mind is a mess of illogical nonsense. The sad part is that people might believe you, which is why I must refute your statements.



Then maybe they shouldn't have married eachother! They chose to, didn't they? Doesn't mean you shouldn't let them marry like a parent guards their children. These are grown adults we're talking about, people who can make their own decisions.

The only stats I have is from middle eastern nations...

Well if it's ultimately their own decision then fine. But I'm just saying that I bet every polygamous marriage ends in unhappiness. It's inevitable that 2 people will be more attracted than the other one. And in the end, shouldn't a law be made to protect this unfortunate 3rd person? Or 4th person? Or 50th person? If this became commonplace within the populace I'm sure some sort of imbalance would occur. It could well become the social norm. You can't just dismiss it as if I was someone with a tinfoil hat :dozey:
Obviously I'm not an expert, but I think if this became widespread, it would upset the balances of society. Why has polygamy been outlawed, apart from religious reasons?

And I'd appreciate you not saying my mind was an illogical mess, thanks very much... I don't think. I'm quite offended. Debating's one thing, but you refer to personal insults.

 

[Ikerous]

From the documentaries I've seen on poligamy in Utah, it seems to actually work out quite well for them.
The only problem is that the girls that are born into this life style are often forced to share in it.
The girls can be betrothed to someone else who already has four or five wives because they're kept ignorant of normal society.

Although i think that has more to do with the fact that most of em are crazy, and less to do with the fact that they're poligamists.

 

[S.L.]

Lol..

So which of the wife is going to kill the other wife first?

 

[Nat Turner]

Lol..

So which of the wife is going to kill the other wife first?

It's simple, you start beating your wives when they act up.

 

[DreadLord]

Don't you people on the US have mormons that have like 10 wifes.

Uhh no.

 

[Ikerous]

Uhh no.

Yea we do...

 

[Nat Turner]

The only stats I have is from middle eastern nations...

Well if it's ultimately their own decision then fine. But I'm just saying that I bet every polygamous marriage ends in unhappiness. It's inevitable that 2 people will be more attracted than the other one. And in the end, shouldn't a law be made to protect this unfortunate 3rd person? Or 4th person? Or 50th person? If this became commonplace within the populace I'm sure some sort of imbalance would occur. It could well become the social norm. You can't just dismiss it as if I was someone with a tinfoil hat :dozey:
Obviously I'm not an expert, but I think if this became widespread, it would upset the balances of society. Why has polygamy been outlawed, apart from religious reasons?

Nobody's rights are being violated, so it should be legal. Even if it somehow spirals out of control, you're only hurting yourself, because everything involving marriage is consentual. And there's no reason to be upset because some guys be married to more women than you, because women are not a commodity to be shared. Women can choose for themselves who to be with; if they want to live with some guy along with 4 others, they should be able to make it legal.

Why has polygamy been outlawed?

A) Religion started it, tradition kept it
B) Most people don't want to be polygamous, religious or not. Also most women would not want their guy to be with other women.

And I'd appreciate you not saying my mind was an illogical mess, thanks very much... I don't think. I'm quite offended. Debating's one thing, but you refer to personal insults.

The state of your mind is not an insult. I'm just telling you so hopefully you can learn.

 

[pacerzfan763]

wow seems kinda gay lol

 

[ktimekiller]

Gods going to judge us to hell, i just know it.

 

[Warbie]

Lucky sod.

 

[kaikisjew9]

thats just messed up. the world is going krazy

 

[Shamrock]

thats just messed up. the world is going krazy

I bet you didn't read any of this..

Its ok.. Neither did I..

I think God will be smiting some folks in the Netherlands very soon.

 

[Que-Ever]

*smacks everybody*
freaking idiots...
first, polygomy is illegal, specifically in the US, EVEN IN UTAH. Second, polygomy has not been done in the mormon religion for over 100 years. anyway, it was only done by select members, and because all the husbands were dying. Since woman couldn't really do jack shit in those days, they needed husbands to take care of them. so, polygamy. and most didn't like the idea at all, anyways.

 

[Ikerous]

*smacks everybody*
freaking idiots...
first, polygomy is illegal, specifically in the US, EVEN IN UTAH. Second, polygomy has not been done in the mormon religion for over 100 years. anyway, it was only done by select members, and because all the husbands were dying. Since woman couldn't really do jack shit in those days, they needed husbands to take care of them. so, polygamy. and most didn't like the idea at all, anyways.

Who are you calling an idiot..?
No one said that it was legal in the US
And there are still lots of mormons in Utah that practice polygomy; try looking up stuff before you call other people idiots when in fact it's you who's wrong.
And besides, women back then probably did a whole hell of a lot more than women today.
You trying taking care of a farm, a house, and a family with 18th century technology

 

[Que-Ever]

Who are you calling an idiot..?
No one said that it was legal in the US
And there are still lots of mormons in Utah that practice polygomy; try looking up stuff before you call other people idiots when in fact it's you who's wrong.
And besides, women back then probably did a whole hell of a lot more than women today.
You trying taking care of a farm, a house, and a family with 17th century technology

The idiots are those who are saying that polygamy is still going on today by mormons. Now listen up: if there are people in utah who are practicing that, they're either A, not mormon, B not mormon and saying they are for whatever reason (it happens), C, mormons who don't follow any of the teachings or anything so they shouldn't really be in the church anyway.

And about the wives, yeah, they did do a lot of work, but business wise, which was what was really needed besides taking care of kids, they probably knew next to nothing about. And there was still stuff like building places and stuff which probably could've been done by the women alone, but not as well or as fast. I'm not trying to be sexist or anything, but that's the way things were.

 

[Edgar]

Thank you Que-Ever, I'm from Utah and I am of the LDS(Mormon) faith. The members of the LDS faith do not practice polygamy, and those within my state who practice polgamy are not LDS,and they are not sponsered by the LDS church. I'm just sick and tired of people assuming that im in a polgamist family and junk like that. That stuff happened over a 100 years ago, just let it go people.

 

[Ikerous]

Just because someone doesn't agrea with the church's teachings doesn't mean they aren't mormon...
There are still tons of mormon polygomists.

There are an estimated 30,000 polygamists living in the western United States
A good majority of whom are undoubtedly mormon

And most mormons practiced polygamy because God told them to; not because women are useless...

 

[BirdMan]

I think it's a step in the right direction. People are happy with their choice? Let them be and stop whining cause it's not what God wants or it's not in your norms of happiness.

 

[Que-Ever]

Just because someone doesn't agrea with the church's teachings doesn't mean they aren't mormon...
There are still tons of mormon polygomists.

There are an estimated 30,000 polygamists living in the western United States
A good majority of whom are undoubtedly mormon

I never said they weren't, I said they shouldn't be.

 

[Ikerous]

I never said they weren't, I said they shouldn't be.

You said:
"The idiots are those who are saying that polygamy is still going on today by mormons."
Polygamy IS still going on today by mormons, so i fail to see how that makes someone an idiot for thinking that.

 

[Que-Ever]

Ok, to clear up, everybody I have met that has said somethign along those lines, say it in a way that means they think that we actually practice it, taht it is part of the religion, and act as though no one else has ever done polygamy. And those people are generally way misinformed, or jsut dumb in general. and everybody in this thread that has said that has come off the same way, including you, although you do sound like you know what you're talking about... even if I do think you're wrong.

edit: anyway, I'd love to continue this (seriously) but I'm tired. Luckily, were both in the same area (state, even) so I shouldn't be missed much, if at all.

 

[Ikerous]

Now you're going to have polygamy nightmares

 

[Que-Ever]

nightmares? hardly
anyway, I suggest you take a look atthis site, it talks about polygamy and "fundamentalists" mormons, and it looked pretty accurate. It spelled polygamy with a N throughout the entire site though, I have a feeling I may have missed something...

 

[Ikerous]

It spelled polygamy with a N throughout the entire site though, I have a feeling I may have missed something...

Polygamy with an m means having more than one spouse at a a time, where polygamy with an n means having more than one wife at a time.
Lol, if the author is making sure to use such careful diction, it must be at least fairly accurate

"About 30,000 Fundamentalist Mormons still live according to "the principle" of polygyny as established by Joseph Smith."
I guess thats the correct wording for the statistic i cited. Thats a lotta people...
It actually kind of seems like it's more common than most people think