Menage-a-trois marriages?

Cavehill Red

A threesome has been legally given civil partnership in Brazil. This somewhat undermines the argument that legalising gay marriage won't open up the door to other arrangements too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/9504746/Three-people-enter-into-civil-union-in-Brazil.html

Personally, I'm not fussed. If they're happy, they're happy. But I can foresee plenty of people getting wound up about this.

Thoughts?

Giselle

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A threesome has been legally given civil partnership in Brazil. This somewhat undermines the argument that legalising gay marriage opens up the door to other arrangements too.

I'd say it supports rather than undermines that 'open door' argument.

Tombi!

How does that work?
Is it like a will situation or... I mean if one of them dies, what happens to their property and stuff and all that?

But if you mean in general about a three way civil union, nope, not an issue.

Marriage, yes. Two people only for that. But hey, if you someone willingly marries three people and it's good in their eyes, fine by me.

Cavehill Red

Giselle wrote: »

I'd say it supports rather than undermines that 'open door' argument.

Indeed, that was what I meant to say.

opinion guy

Awesome

ITS_A_BADGER

Giselle wrote: »

I'd say it supports rather than undermines that 'open door' argument.

twill be back door and front door, No arguments

Colmustard

I would like foursome marriages to be legal, then there would always be enough for a decent game of dawn or bridge.

Chuck Stone

And the next thing you know the dogs are laying down with cats, men are marrying horses and the whole of society crumbles into one mass of heaving filth and wipes itself out.

All because same sex couples want to have the same rights as other couples.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Cavehill Red

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And the next thing you know the dogs are laying down with cats, men are marrying horses and the whole of society crumbles into one mass of heaving filth and wipes itself out.

All because same sex couples want to have the same rights as other couples.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Marrying horses, you say?
:cool:
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

fasttalkerchat

Its the natural next step really. Whatever 2/a group of adult humans choose to do... bla bla bla

Morag

Civil marriage is a legal contract, it is possible to be in a partnership which is governed by a legal contract with more then one person, so I don't see why civil marriage is restricted to a partnership with just one person.

Tombi!

Sharrow wrote: »

Civil marriage is a legal contract, it is possible to be in a partnership which is governed by a legal contract with more then one person, so I don't see why civil marriage is restricted to a partnership with just one person.

I was thinking that myself. But then I figured, how's it going to work with a three way contract?

Cavehill Red

Sharrow wrote: »

Civil marriage is a legal contract, it is possible to be in a partnership which is governed by a legal contract with more then one person, so I don't see why civil marriage is restricted to a partnership with just one person.

But contracts can be drawn up in very complicated circumstances covering all manner of business practices with no analogue in relationships.
Do you envisage any reasonable limitations being put on such marriage contracts if they were expanded beyond two people?
What about, say, 5 oul lads and a 18 year old girl? Or a marriage that says you and I are married Monday to Friday, but at the weekend I'm married to someone else?
I think applying the model of contract law to relationships is not necessarily the way forward.

Giselle

Sharrow wrote: »

Civil marriage is a legal contract, it is possible to be in a partnership which is governed by a legal contract with more then one person, so I don't see why civil marriage is restricted to a partnership with just one person.

The word marriage is key here, and its different from business contracts in the spirit, if not the letter of the law.

Business partnership contracts have always had an open number of partners, marriage is restricted both culturally and by all precedent, to two.

Personally I don't care who marries who, in what combination or number, as long as everyone is equally happy with the arrangement and that inheiritance and parental rights are legislated for, with regard to the childrens stability.

How stable a kids life can be with four dads and six mums is another question.

ArtSmart

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And the next thing you know the dogs are laying down with cats, men are marrying horses and the whole of society crumbles into one mass of heaving filth and wipes itself out.

All because same sex couples want to have the same rights as other couples.

This is why we can't have nice things.

tried that once. She was a right nag. everything was just 'ney, ney, ney'.

LETHAL LADY

Are Mormons not polygamists?

Cavehill Red

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Are Mormons not polygamists?

Not for over a century. There are some offshoot Mormon cults from the main church which still practice it illegally though. The head of one of them got banged up a few years ago for the usual culty behaviour - shagging all the women (and young girls), disinheriting and expelling the lads, and stockpiling weapons.

LETHAL LADY

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not for over a century. There are some offshoot Mormon cults from the main church which still practice it illegally though. The head of one of them got banged up a few years ago for the usual culty behaviour - shagging all the women (and young girls), disinheriting and expelling the lads, and stockpiling weapons.

Is that currently true of every state as in is it illegal?

WoollyRedHat

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And the next thing you know the dogs are laying down with cats, men are marrying horses and the whole of society crumbles into one mass of heaving filth and wipes itself out.

All because same sex couples want to have the same rights as other couples.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I used to be married to a horse. Was an absolute nightmare.

Colmustard

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Are Mormons not polygamists?

I think it was 1889 when another divine revelation came from the angel who revealed polygamy is not the way. What that meant was Utah could join the Union.

There was something similar in 1979 when it was declared black people no longer bare the mark of cain, so as of from then, black people could become mormon priests.

It sounds like my type of religion, nice and Mitt Romney or wacky.

Cavehill Red

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Is that currently true of every state as in is it illegal?

Yes. It's a felony in most, and a misdemeanour in Texas and a few other states. In some states it's illegal even for groups to co-habit without marrying.
It's legal only in a handful of West African nations and some Muslim Asian states, and in all cases only to permit one man to have more than one wife.

efb

wasn't polygamy big in the OT?

LETHAL LADY

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Yes. It's a felony in most, and a misdemeanour in Texas and a few other states. In some states it's illegal even for groups to co-habit without marrying.
It's legal only in a handful of West African nations and some Muslim Asian states, and in all cases only to permit one man to have more than one wife.

Out of interest why is it a misdemeanour in some states and a felony in others, maybe it is ignorance on my part but I know which one I would rather be caught for.

RBX

There have been cases before, where marriage wasn't always between two people. There have been cases where women have married themselves (
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/22/us-taiwan-wedding-idUSTRE69L0NY20101022 and http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/new-marriage-mockery-bride-marries-self ). Other cases have had people marry objects ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality )

Having that said, I believe this development is original. There have been polygamous marriages in the past, but that would have been one person married to two or more other people. The two or more other people wouldn't AFAIK have been married to each other.

Cavehill Red

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Out of interest why is it a misdemeanour in some states and a felony in others, maybe it is ignorance on my part but I know which one I would rather be caught for.

States get to make their own laws over there. I'm sure there are historical and cultural reasons for the differences in approach.

Cavehill Red

RBX wrote: »

There have been cases before, where marriage wasn't always between two people. There have been cases where women have married themselves (
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/22/us-taiwan-wedding-idUSTRE69L0NY20101022 and http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/new-marriage-mockery-bride-marries-self ). Other cases have had people marry objects ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality )

None of those were legal marriages or even partnerships. They don't even have the status of the 'common law' polygamy practiced by Aboriginals in Australia. They're just crazy people having parties for themselves.

kneemos

If A wants to divorce B and C but C does'nt want to divorce A what happens to B and C?

fasttalkerchat

kneemos wrote: »

If A wants to divorce B and C but C does'nt want to divorce A what happens to B and C?

Milk?

kneemos

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Milk?

Mmmmm eh.

Cavehill Red

fasttalkerchat wrote:

Milk?

kneemos wrote: »

Mmmmm eh.

I know this is Afterhours, and it is late, but I appear to have overestimated the quality of contributions to this discussion. Ah well.

kneemos

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I know this is Afterhours, and it is late, but I appear to have overestimated the quality of contributions to this discussion. Ah well.

My cabbage is curly.

Cavehill Red

kneemos wrote: »

My cabbage is curly.

You should fly to Brazil and marry it. You and all your friends.

smash

That man is a hero!

Chips Lovell

The Telegraph has overegged this quite a bit. Brazil hasn't legalised polygamy. Instead, one notary decided they can do this. As the BBC explains, it is far from being recognised yet:

While Ms Domingues has approved the union, it is not clear whether courts, service providers and private companies such as health insurance providers will accept the ruling.

hardCopy

kneemos wrote: »

If A wants to divorce B and C but C does'nt want to divorce A what happens to B and C?

A leaves with 1/3rd of the money, B and C stay together if they so wish.

I don't really see the big deal.

kneemos

hardCopy wrote: »

A leaves with 1/3rd of the money, B and C stay together if they so wish.

I don't really see the big deal.

But C still wants to stay with A and B.

hardCopy

kneemos wrote: »

But C still wants to stay with A.

Tough.

Same as if Mary wants to divorce Jack and Jack wants to stay with Mary in a conventional marriage.

kneemos

hardCopy wrote: »

Tough.

Same as if Mary wants to divorce Jack and Jack wants to stay with Mary in a conventional marriage.

I suppose.It would certainly create friction between B and C,If C continued to see A It would create issues I'm sure.

Annasopra

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The Telegraph has overegged this quite a bit.

They're not the only ones.

sbsquarepants

Giselle wrote: »

I'd say it supports rather than undermines that 'open door' argument.

There are plenty of cultures that allow 3,4,5 or whatever number of people to marry, however they usually only allow 1 man to basically own women as property. Surely this is a step up from that situation?
I personally couldn't care less who marries what, it's entirely their own concern. People should be allowed live and love as they see fit.

Capt'n Midnight

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And the next thing you know the dogs are laying down with cats, men are marrying horses

Matthew Broderick ?

Morag

Giselle wrote: »

The word marriage is key here, and its different from business contracts in the spirit, if not the letter of the law.

Business partnership contracts have always had an open number of partners, marriage is restricted both culturally and by all precedent, to two.

Personally I don't care who marries who, in what combination or number, as long as everyone is equally happy with the arrangement and that inheiritance and parental rights are legislated for, with regard to the childrens stability.

How stable a kids life can be with four dads and six mums is another question.

Culturally in western christianised society but that is not all the planet.

Who said that all parties would get parental rights over all the kids?
As for how stable a child's life will be, more people in thier home life who love them and are supportive of them and can give them time and care has to be a good thing.

Giselle

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There are plenty of cultures that allow 3,4,5 or whatever number of people to marry, however they usually only allow 1 man to basically own women as property. Surely this is a step up from that situation?
I personally couldn't care less who marries what, it's entirely their own concern. People should be allowed live and love as they see fit.

My point there was purely semantic.

I couldn't care less how other people live their lives, if everyone is equally happy with the situation, as I stated in my other post.

Morag

Well the problem is when we give rights to one set of people who are in a long term relationship and don't give those same rights to others.

Giselle

Sharrow wrote: »

Who said that all parties would get parental rights over all the kids?

I think if a plural marriage situation were to work that they would all co-parent the children surely? Otherwise you have separate families within the larger family, which is sort of going against the spirit of the enterprise.

If the children are co-parented by a number of parents, why shouldn't they all have equal parental rights?

You can't have equal partners in a situation where only some of them have rights in the natural consequences of that partnership, surely? If they don't, thats got to result in instability.

Another question worth posing, and to which I don't pretend to have the answers, is if a union of two persons is likely to fail about half the time, how likely is a union of three or more to last? Should marriage contracts be of a limited time, and what are the consequences to the western model of society and to the family unit containing children, if its a finite endeavour?

Sometimes its as simple as people choosing to live their lives in whatever pattern they wish, and sometimes, legally, its advisable to consider the consequences for society at large.

I only know that I wouldn't entertain a plural union for myself, under any circumstances. What other people do is up to them, but the long term effects on them personally, and the effects on any children, need to be examined.

Tazium

Giselle wrote: »

Should marriage contracts be of a limited time, and what are the consequences to the western model of society and to the family unit containing children, if its a finite endeavour?

Nice question. I have often wondered what would happen to society in general if a marriage lasted long enough to bring any children to school going age. After which the 'contract' is dissolved and both parties are free to find other partners. I suppose contract or not, it's what happens in some cases but it's just not legal in the lawful sense.

reganreggie

The real question is why would you want two women. Is it not enough making one bitter, disappointed and resentfull at a time.:)

kneemos

reganreggie wrote: »

The real question is why would you want two women. Is it not enough making one bitter, disappointed and resentfull at a time.:)

Could be a woman with two men, she'd be busy I know but not impossible.

Cavehill Red

Tazium wrote: »

Nice question. I have often wondered what would happen to society in general if a marriage lasted long enough to bring any children to school going age. After which the 'contract' is dissolved and both parties are free to find other partners. I suppose contract or not, it's what happens in some cases but it's just not legal in the lawful sense.

Not a model I would wish on kids. I know many kids do live an existence of revolving door stepparents, but research indicates this does have adverse effects on their development right into adulthood.
There is perhaps an argument for the 'tribal' model of raising kids, where children are collectively and communally looked after by a small community of adults. That worked in the distant past here and works today in the rainforest.
But I don't like your suggestion at all, I'm afraid. It's a charter for parental sexual selfishness at the cost of child development, stability and security.

kneemos

Tazium wrote: »

Nice question. I have often wondered what would happen to society in general if a marriage lasted long enough to bring any children to school going age. After which the 'contract' is dissolved and both parties are free to find other partners. I suppose contract or not, it's what happens in some cases but it's just not legal in the lawful sense.

You make it sound like a pennance,why bother with marriage at all in that case?

kowloon

kneemos wrote: »

Could be a woman with two men, she'd be busy I know but not impossible.

I believe After Hours tradition requires the following response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTykY2B0kEY

I'd assume in the case of parental rights the biological parents would be the ones with the rights. It would be a nightmare for adoptions though.