Crosstalk

S. Michael Craven
Author, Speaker, VP for Religion & Culture at the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families


Throughout the same-sex marriage debate, advocates for homosexual marriage have continually scoffed at the suggestion that the legitimization of marriage between persons of the same-sex will inevitably lead to further redefinitions including polygamy. Andrew Sullivan, one of homosexual marriage's most intelligent defenders, labeled this suggestion "fear-mongering" akin to the discredited belief that interracial marriage would lead to birth defects. Matt Coles, director of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said, "I think the idea that there is some kind of slippery slope [to polygamy or group marriage] is silly."
Well, once again the Dutch demonstrate the truth of such fears when on September 30th a man and two women were given a license for their three-way "marriage" by the Dutch government. Victor de Bruijn, 46, from Rosendaal, and his wife Bianca, 31, have signed a "co-habitation contract" with a woman, Mirjam Geven, who abandoned her marriage for the new arrangement. I know, I know; enough with the Dutch already. I wish I could but I simply can't resist the illustration offered by the venerable Dutch as they slip from one cultural rung to the next.

Snip.......

______

So will Andrew Sullivan, Barney Frank and all the other gay activists now apologize to Senator Santorum for trashing him for predicting exactly what is happening? Didn't think so.

marry me X!!!

Sorry but I think I can make a distinction between 2 people commiting to each other and polygamy. Good work once again X!

"cohabitation contract" = marriage???

Even better AML, speaking of cohabitation contracts, the law creates common law marriages for people who won't commit to each other in an offical way but yet 2 queers can't get recognition at all.

Just an example.

How about this: would allowing gay marriage make more people become gay because there would be an acceptance of something they have denied for social reasons? If this is the case would the existing relationship be vapid shams as there was no love in the first place? As such, allowing gay marriage would help to encourage the very thing traditional marriage proponents fear will be the downfall of stability.

Well, if that's the case, I should be able to marry my surfboard. I certainly love it enough, and I want my tax breaks too!

The first post is a distortion that's been going around from the right-wing. It does not involve marriage (note the use of quotes around the word "marriage"). This man and two women simply filed some documents claiming to have some sort of a civil union (the government has not recognized any such thing).

It's a slipery slope"

Mirjam Geven, who abandoned her marriage for the new arrangement

I think he's just posting to show off his new hentai-inspired avatar....

I didn't take family law. Sorry. It was just a point. I think it was YOU that missed my point about the reasons why I would think it fair to confer rights upon same-sex couples as there are benefits like property rights which they aren't privy to. Also in the context of my comment I don't think I alluded that they were being forced to become married but rather were given the rights of marriage even when they didn't seek to have such a union.

I make the distinction because of the number. But also because of the significance of the number. Traditionalists seek to have a 2 way reciprocal relationship. Where is the reciprocity in some 3 way (heads out of the gutter people!)? I support the one because of the same virtues that people would attribute to traditional unions: stability, reciprocity, etc. In a polygamous relationship there is no commitment wholey to another party; allegiance is split.