Will that be one wife or two?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, 30 September 2005 01:11.

Alastair Nicholson was until recently the chief justice of Australia’s Family Court. Soon after he retired, he wrote a newspaper article supporting homosexual marriage. His argument was that traditional marriage, defined as an exclusive union between a man and a woman, was already defunct.

Not only was marriage no longer limited to heterosexuals, in Nicholson’s view it was no longer limited to couples either. “It is difficult to argue that a modern marriage necessarily excludes all others”, he concluded.

A year later, and we have the new Swedish feminist party asserting much the same thing. At their conference, they decided that marriage should be replaced by a cohabitation law which not only ignores gender, but would also allow for more than two people to be included. Party founder, Tiina Rosenberg explained that the group wanted to create “a modern concept which does not favour and promote couples and heterosexual norms”.

Outlandish, you say? Well, consider this. Last week, the first ever “threesome” was officially registered as a civil union in the Netherlands. Viktor de Bruijn and two women went to the notary in their wedding finery, exchanged rings and had their “wedding” duly registered.

Admittedly, the Netherlands still draws a distinction between civil unions and marriages, but it would seem to be the first step on the way to an acceptance of polygamy by a Western government.

My question to the feminist women out there. Don’t you think it’s time to reconsider where the sisterhood is leading you? Traditional Western family life placed restraints on men that were considered to be for the benefit of everyone involved, including women. If you break apart this tradition, in the name of individual liberation or autonomy, then these restraints will give way.

The future is looming and it’s time to decide whether any kind of marriage, polygamy included, suits you as well as the companionate, monogamous marriage favoured by previous generations of Western women.

Tags: Feminism

Comments:

Posted by Geoff Beck on Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:59 | #

> Alastair Nicholson said marriage is already defunct.

Nicholson is both right and wrong. Yes, marriage as you, I, and our ancestors knew it is defunct - but if marriage promotes miscegenation, well that is a good thing:

Love bridges Dutch racial divide
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/4237356.stm

Posted by Welleran on Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:22 | #

Heterosexual monogamy is CENTRAL to civilization. It is a social compact among men - specifically, among average men - to guarantee each other reproductive rights. This is a big part of why men in the West - as opposed to, say, the Islamic world - can trust each other, to the point where it is simply taken for granted that they do. Not coveting another man’s wife means men can trust each other and trust their wives and have confidence that their children are indeed their own. Not having to constantly be guarding your wife from other men means you have energy to build and discover things. That kind of trust is what you build a civilization around. Without it, you just have roving bands of thugs and the law of the jungle, as in the Islamic world.

The rise of “alternative” marriages is a direct blow at this civilization.

I’ve actually been working on an essay of sorts, on a somewhat related subject, brought on by too much reading of the tuckermax.com message board (a very educational place in some ways, very horrifying in others). The utter lack of morals and emotion prevalent in what passes for dating today is encouraged by the “if it feels good, do it” school, but it is just another kind of moral rot.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:42 | #

An excellent log entry, Mark. Exactly this was predicted when homosexual marriage was legalized in two states in the U.S.—it was pointed out the process wouldn’t end there, but would go on to force other uncleanness on us, such as polygamy—but no one listened. And it won’t stop with polygamy either. The next degenerateness to be fully legalized will be incestuous marriages, and other perverted “civil unions” will follow those into legalization, one-by-one, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow.

The person who wrote that article linked in Geoff’s comment, Ivan O’Mahoney, and the BBC editor who approved it for publication, should be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Everything was wrong with it, everything, and not just wrong but as obnoxiously wrong as one might imagine in one’s worst Katy-Couric-Matt-Lauer nightmares. Johann Hari might as well have written it. And to think they threw away that punishment on such as William Tyndale for merely updating John Wycliffe’s Bible translation, while for an article like this the culprits get away scot-free! Where is hanging, drawing, and quartering when we really need it?

Posted by Truth Be Told on Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:05 | #

Why stop at humans?

If the stated criteria for homosexuals to get married is a profession of ‘love’ by one or more parties, and that is about all I’ve heard from the gay-marriage camp, then this may apply to many other unions as well. As long as one partner speaks of ‘love’, then it must be legal.

For instance:

1) Non-human animals such as mammals, fish, insects, lizards, etc.

2) Plants. Who says a Venus Fly-Trap isn’t just batting its eyelashes?

3) Objects, such as cars and remote controls, have caused much envy over the years from neglected spouses. Why not just make it official.

4) Intangible concepts. I’ve heard liberals say they love diversity, multi-culturalism, and what-not. I say we give them the chance to prove it.

Clearly, wherever the line is drawn will leave many on the wrong side wanting in. We, as a society are not tasked with explaining why we keep them out. Rather, the burden of proof is on them to explain why the rules should change, and how the majority would benefit.

More seriously, if gay marriage passes, expect Mormons and Moslems to challenge for group marriage on religious grounds quickly.

Posted by Andrew L on Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:41 | #

Heeee,m mmm,
A Long winding road to nowhere, something to look foward to, no it is just a bad dream , is.nt it?