Three person civil union in Brazil

decimatio

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-19402508

I always thought that groups or 3 or 4 people could survive much more easily in the modern world than a couple. In some cases having a union of 3, 4, or more people could improve living standards and benefit society as a whole.

One instance that I can think of is economically. 3 or 4 people could potentially be better off financially sharing costs of living such as housing and food to name two. I don't know how other couples find it but myself and my partner find that buying and cooking food for two people often leads to waste. It's much more economical to buy food and cook for a larger number of people.

3 or 4 people could also more easily share the cost of a mortgage, household charges such as heating and water.

Share household choirs, support eachother emotionally better than a couple could.

I didn't and still don't think you need a union involving these people on an intimate level to achieve this but it is one way.

Of course there could be many problems with it as well. It could be abused by people wanting power over others, the religious for one group. And that's not even to discuss problems such as jealousy, child welfare etc.

I thought about this before in terms of two couples making such a living arrangement purely from a financial perspective been beneficial to all involved.

Thoughts?

strobe

decimatio wrote: »

Thoughts?

I see no reason whatsoever that numbers of people greater than two should not be entitled to marriage/civil union. I also however do not think that people that chose to get married/ehh...civilly unified, whomsoever the union consists of, should be entitled to the tax breaks and special rights etc they are afforded and single people not. By living together and sharing costs as you outlined above they already are in a position to be better off financially than if they did not group together in this way. Why are single people being forced to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the financial burden to the benefit of the married? No one's been forced to marry, why are they being compensated?

Of course, help with the expense of child production and rearing is one reason but I really resent (<<not really the word I'm looking for but I can't think of the appropriate one) the fact that just because someone get's married they are afforded this taxation/financial advantage. If they actually go on to have a child or children then by all means offer appropriate assistance in this endeavour if it is required, but why is it being provided to people just because they get married?

Thoughts anyone?

decimatio

Strobe,

I'm largely in agreement regarding the tax breaks issue. Actually its the only half decent argument I've ever heard in opposition to gay marraige. Some american Republican politician, cannot remember his name, said that the reason for a marraige, and therefore tax breaks, was child rearing.

It made me think that there should be two classifications of marraige. Class one which would be for hetrosexual or homosexual couples who dont have children, by sexual reproduction or adoption is really irrelevant, who don't get the same tax breaks as Class Two which would emcompass hetro and homo sexual couples that do have children and they would be entitled to the child rearing tax breaks.

Rynox45

I agree,I don't think there's really any downside to a consensual polyamorous relationship. Especially since it's usually against the law whereas adultery carries no penalty whatsoever.

To quote Stephen Fry:
"This is the weird thing about ploygamy, we all think of it as if it's some terrible thing like incest, but actually, the weird thing is, if you deceive someone by having a mistress and a whole family... it's not against the law. But if you said to two women 'look I love you both, you're absolutely splendid, how would it be if I married both of you?' and they said okay, that would be breaking the law."

Gbear

Strobe nailed it.

I'll only add the obvious point that it has to be equal among genders.
This isn't the same as Muslim men having harems of women.
Not sure what the score is with Mormons.

Zamboni

Tax break only really kicks if one person earns significantly more than the other and they are both above the marginal rate of tax.
This would not apply to the vast majority of married people taking into account the numbers of one income families and numbers on average industrial wages.

So where exactly do we draw a line?
Is consent the only criteria that we should apply to any form of civil union?
Ludicrous.

I've deleted a lot of rant here :pac:

Gbear

Zamboni wrote: »

So where exactly do we draw a line?
Is consent the only criteria that we should apply to any form of civil union?
Ludicrous.

I've deleted a lot of rant here :pac:

Maybe you shouldn't have if it explained why you think any other criteria is required.

christmas2012

Its not a relationship of equivalence they are fooling themselves - i think its sad,really sad,i feel very sorry for them,im sure it will be full of turbulence more than most,who shares the matrimonial bed for the first night,if one doesnt like the idea of sharing their 'quality time' etc..There are so so many pit falls here..I wouldnt hold out much hope for longevity there..Probably more stressful than most relationships which have their ups and downs even at the best of times..

sponsoredwalk

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its not a relationship of equivalence they are fooling themselves - i think its sad,really sad,i feel very sorry for them,im sure it will be full of turbulence more than most,who shares the matrimonial bed for the first night,if one doesnt like the idea of sharing their 'quality time' etc..There are so so many pit falls here..I wouldnt hold out much hope for longevity there..Probably more stressful than most relationships which have their ups and downs even at the best of times..

Tell me, have you ever heard of a subject called social science? If not I urge you to stay away from these books, they will shake your worldview from it's foundations & open the doorway to the PIB that all those other people engage in...

MagicMarker

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its not a relationship of equivalence they are fooling themselves - i think its sad,really sad,i feel very sorry for them,im sure it will be full of turbulence more than most,who shares the matrimonial bed for the first night,if one doesnt like the idea of sharing their 'quality time' etc..There are so so many pit falls here..I wouldnt hold out much hope for longevity there..Probably more stressful than most relationships which have their ups and downs even at the best of times..

Have you never heard of a spit roast?

robindch

christmas2012 wrote: »

[...] who shares the matrimonial bed [...]

With any luck, all three.

Fun times, I'd have said

strobe

Zamboni wrote: »

Is consent the only criteria that we should apply to any form of civil union?
Ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous? What criteria should we apply apart from consent Zam? And why?

Nodin

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its not a relationship of equivalence they are fooling themselves -.........

....you know these people or something?

old hippy

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its not a relationship of equivalence they are fooling themselves - i think its sad,really sad,i feel very sorry for them,im sure it will be full of turbulence more than most,who shares the matrimonial bed for the first night,if one doesnt like the idea of sharing their 'quality time' etc..There are so so many pit falls here..I wouldnt hold out much hope for longevity there..Probably more stressful than most relationships which have their ups and downs even at the best of times..

Polygamous marriages exist in many cultures, "right" or "wrong". And don't forget polygamous relationships. What, exactly, are you against here?

Gurgle

Consenting adults, each to their own, equal rights, secular society etc etc
'Marriage' as a legal status should be available to any number and any gender combination of adults.

pwurple

strobe wrote: »

the fact that just because someone get's married they are afforded this taxation/financial advantage. If they actually go on to have a child or children then by all means offer appropriate assistance in this endeavour if it is required, but why is it being provided to people just because they get married?

Thoughts anyone?

I am not sure what you mean here about financial advantages. There is no tax advantage to being married unless one person loses their job, or gives up to look after children. If both people are earning in the top tax band, there is 0 tax difference between being married and single.


As for the multi-partner thing... I can see how households run fine with more than two people. Multiple generations of a family in the same house would be common enough up to recently. Plenty of people had a grandparent or single aunt/uncle living in the house. Or even a housekeeper or other domestic help. I think it would get quite complex with the practicalities of gaurdianship of children, wills and taxation, and dissolution of the arrangement to have more than two people in a marriage.

Zamboni

Gurgle wrote: »

Consenting adults, each to their own, equal rights, secular society etc etc
'Marriage' as a legal status should be available to any number and any gender combination of adults.

Reproductive biology gave us the male/female union. We happen to call it marriage. It may not be the best concept upon which to base a family/marriage unit and it clearly has it's faults (predominantly due to the promiscuous nature of the male) but does that mean we push it aside and allow any and all multitude of socially untested combinations?
It may seem like a simple human rights issue but our entire society would have to change and there does not appear to be an appetite for that at the moment.

Pawwed Rig

strobe wrote: »

I also however do not think that people that chose to get married/ehh...civilly unified, whomsoever the union consists of, should be entitled to the tax breaks and special rights etc they are afforded and single people not. By living together and sharing costs as you outlined above they already are in a position to be better off financially than if they did not group together in this way. Why are single people being forced to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the financial burden to the benefit of the married? No one's been forced to marry, why are they being compensated?

Of course, help with the expense of child production and rearing is one reason but I really resent the fact that just because someone get's married they are afforded this taxation/financial advantage. If they actually go on to have a child or children then by all means offer appropriate assistance in this endeavour if it is required, but why is it being provided to people just because they get married?

Thoughts anyone?

What tax breaks are you referring to?

ShooterSF

Zamboni wrote: »

Reproductive biology gave us the male/female union. We happen to call it marriage. It may not be the best concept upon which to base a family/marriage unit and it clearly has it's faults (predominantly due to the promiscuous nature of the male) but does that mean we push it aside and allow any and all multitude of socially untested combinations?
It may seem like a simple human rights issue but our entire society would have to change and there does not appear to be an appetite for that at the moment.

What we call marriage now may stem from reproductive issues but it has changed plenty of times. We no longer treat women as wife and property nor are most of the world too keen on arranged marriages but one's through love. We no longer stone women who turn out to have lost their virginity before marriage. We have dispersed with racial concerns too and ditched the notion that one marries within one's class. Never have we demanded that people must be able to reproduce for marriage until it became a convenient, almost secular looking, argument against gay marriage. Even still we ignore the fact that infertile people can and do marry.

Marriage has moved more and more away from what it was a sharing of families wealth through arranged marriages to a declaration of love and commitment to an other person. Polyamorous marriage alongside gay marriage seem like logical steps to further this.

As for you comment of "socially untested combinations", rich and poor, black and white were once "socially untested combinations" so do you not fear people looking back at your argument and seeing you as the same as those that offered that reason against those unions?

(As an aside I don't believe men are any more promiscuous than women)

(Also for someone with no intent to ever marry I seem to be getting quite passionate about the whole thing!)

strobe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What tax breaks are you referring to?

Bear tax, I think?

I dunno, it was two am and I was all up on my high horse. Get a higher tax credit dealy or some ****?

What's with the third degree!? I'm not the one on trial here! Down with marriage! Smash the system! Doo wop a doo yeah yeah! Four more years!

ATTICA..! ATTICA..! ATTICA..!

Pawwed Rig

strobe wrote: »

Bear tax, I think?

I dunno, it was two am and I was all up on my high horse. Get a higher tax credit dealy or some ****?

What's with the third degree!? I'm not the one on trial here! Down with marriage! Smash the system! Doo wop a doo yeah yeah! Four more years!

ATTICA..! ATTICA..! ATTICA..!

Ok I will dispense with my follow up questions then:D

Genghiz Cohen

Zamboni wrote: »

Reproductive biology gave us the male/female union. We happen to call it marriage.

I think it's actually called sex.

Zamboni wrote: »

It may not be the best concept upon which to base a family/marriage unit and it clearly has it's faults (predominantly due to the promiscuous nature of the male) but does that mean we push it aside and allow any and all multitude of socially untested combinations?

If it's what consenting adults want and it won't effect anyone else. Yes.

Zamboni wrote: »

It may seem like a simple human rights issue but our entire society would have to change and there does not appear to be an appetite for that at the moment.

Not really. It's a opt in thing. Like smoking: if you don't like it, don't do it. If you feel strongly about it you could not socialise with those who do participate, but you should never have the right to stop others from enjoying something that effects no one else (smoking analogy gets a bit shaky here).

Zamboni

ShooterSF wrote: »

What we call marriage now may stem from reproductive issues but it has changed plenty of times. We no longer treat women as wife and property nor are most of the world too keen on arranged marriages but one's through love. We no longer stone women who turn out to have lost their virginity before marriage. We have dispersed with racial concerns too and ditched the notion that one marries within one's class. Never have we demanded that people must be able to reproduce for marriage until it became a convenient, almost secular looking, argument against gay marriage. Even still we ignore the fact that infertile people can and do marry.

Marriage has moved more and more away from what it was a sharing of families wealth through arranged marriages to a declaration of love and commitment to an other person. Polyamorous marriage alongside gay marriage seem like logical steps to further this.

As for you comment of "socially untested combinations", rich and poor, black and white were once "socially untested combinations" so do you not fear people looking back at your argument and seeing you as the same as those that offered that reason against those unions?

(As an aside I don't believe men are any more promiscuous than women)

(Also for someone with no intent to ever marry I seem to be getting quite passionate about the whole thing!)

Did you just somehow imply I'm as bad as a racist o_O
I have no moral objection against any form of number or same/sex unions per se, but it clearly not as clear cut as saying sure fire ahead folks.
I can't even begin to think of the administrative, civil, social, psychological difficulties that would result from a free for all combination union.

Gurgle

ShooterSF wrote: »

We no longer treat women as wife and property nor are most of the world too keen on arranged marriages but one's through love. We no longer stone women who turn out to have lost their virginity before marriage. We have dispersed with racial concerns too and ditched the notion that one marries within one's class.

'We' is presumably the whole human race.
We're not there yet, but we're getting there.*

*feck off Bertie, that expression is mine now

Zamboni

Gurgle wrote: »

Consenting adults, each to their own, equal rights, secular society etc etc
'Marriage' as a legal status should be available to any number and any gender combination of adults.

This might be a lovely idea for some imagined utopia based on liberty and equality but it's not going to happen in our lifetime.

Gurgle

Zamboni wrote: »

This might be a lovely idea for some imagined utopia based on liberty and equality but it's not going to happen in our lifetime.

Option 1: Imagine utopia and move towards it
Option 2: Write off utopia as impossible and throw cynical comments at anyone following Option 1.

Zamboni

Gurgle wrote: »

Option 1: Imagine utopia and move towards it
Option 2: Write off utopia as impossible and throw cynical comments at anyone following Option 1.

Apologies if I came across as cynical. It is not my intention.
I am trying to look at this logistically. We operate in a democracy. Whatever chance gay marriage has, there is certainly no ground swell to advocate multi-partner unions and apart from one single news story from Brazil I've never heard of any demand for it.
If this is a purely hypothetical thread than yes, I'm all for it.

Gbear

Zamboni wrote: »

Apologies if I came across as cynical. It is not my intention.
I am trying to look at this logistically. We operate in a democracy. Whatever chance gay marriage has, there is certainly no ground swell to advocate multi-partner unions and apart from one single news story from Brazil I've never heard of any demand for it.
If this is a purely hypothetical thread than yes, I'm all for it.

I suppose the idea is that if we get to a stage where civil unions are equal for all then by default polygamy will become legal.

Unless someone were actually to challenge the legal basis for such a Union (and you'd have to be a miserable ****e-hawk to do that to somebody) then I would presume it'd be fine, even if the law didn't specifically make provisions for it.

Gurgle

Zamboni wrote: »

I am trying to look at this logistically. We operate in a democracy. Whatever chance gay marriage has, there is certainly no ground swell to advocate multi-partner unions.

Logistics, classic SEP tbh.

Thankfully we don't live in an absolute democracy, its a constitutional democracy. Constitution first, popular opinion second.

Its unfortunate that our constitutions is severely broken in several places, but at least some bits are right.

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This is usually interpreted as 'all citizens must follow the same laws'.

In my little imaginary utopia, this also means 'laws must be written taking all citizens into account'.

Once the words 'adult' and 'consent' are included, then a legal marriage should be possible for any number and gender combination.

This is boards, not a referendum debate. We exist purely in the land of hypothesis

Certainly 'Demand' in one form or another should be a pre-requisite for legislation, but not for discussion

Undergod

Gbear wrote: »

Strobe nailed it.

I'll only add the obvious point that it has to be equal among genders.
This isn't the same as Muslim men having harems of women.
Not sure what the score is with Mormons.

Mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygyny. FLDS churches still do, with no upper limit on the number of wives as far as I know.

I don't see any reason to enforce gender-equality here, if an X wants to have seven Ys, and all the Ys are fine with it, then whatever. Hey, if they want to have seven Ys and three Xs, still none of my business.

robindch

Undergod wrote: »

Mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygyny. FLDS churches still do [...] I don't see any reason to enforce gender-equality here [...]

Within the FLDS, there's little doubt that there's a lot of coercion going on, not to mention all that underage sex.

strobe

robindch wrote: »

Within the FLDS, there's little doubt that there's a lot of coercion going on, not to mention all that underage sex.

Then the issue is coercion (aren't all issues worth talking about?) but not necessarily polygamy. There can be coercion in 2 people marriages (7 year old child brides in Yemen and more besides) but we don't forbid the currently accepted 2 person marriage on this ground, we just try to enforce that legally recognisable consent should always be present for a marriage to be valid or allowed or desirable.

(Not saying you necessarily disagree with any of the above Robin... just putting it out there in general.)

Gbear

Undergod wrote: »

Mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygyny. FLDS churches still do, with no upper limit on the number of wives as far as I know.

I don't see any reason to enforce gender-equality here, if an X wants to have seven Ys, and all the Ys are fine with it, then whatever. Hey, if they want to have seven Ys and three Xs, still none of my business.

Oh that's grand - I meant equality in the sense that both men and women have an equal opportunity to marry whoever they want - not like the harems in some Muslim countries.

magicbastarder

normal divorce between two people sounds messy enough as is. can you imagine a four way divorce?

Pawwed Rig

Or the inheritance problems. never mind whose kids are who

Sin City

Poor guy, two mother in laws

Undergod

robindch wrote: »

Within the FLDS, there's little doubt that there's a lot of coercion going on, not to mention all that underage sex.

Eh, in fairness now, I did put those in two different paragraphs - the second part was a general statement, not intended in relation to the FLDS. Cause yeah, **** those guys.

But obviously those are separate issues to marriage laws, underage sex and marriage coercion can and does occur in monogamous societies.

Pa Dee

A bizarre situation that shouldn't be allowed. Unnatural and disgusting

Nodin

Pa Dee wrote: »

A bizarre situation that shouldn't be allowed. Unnatural and disgusting

Do please explain.

mohawk

Pa Dee wrote: »

A bizarre situation that shouldn't be allowed. Unnatural and disgusting

Well that's me convinced. Such a strong argument.

Pa Dee

Pa Dee wrote: »

A bizarre situation that shouldn't be allowed. Unnatural and disgusting

I despise "unnatural" as an adjective. Humans are natural. The actions of humans are natural. If humans engage in a three-person union, then that's natural. People use "unnatural" as an adjective in an attempt to mask their own personal beliefs as somehow being universal, as not being their own opinions.

You finding something to be disgusting or "unnatural" (whatever that means to you) isn't a basis for objecting to others doing that something. You'll have to do better than that if you wish to convince others.

28064212

gvn wrote: »

I despise "unnatural" as an adjective. Humans are natural. The actions of humans are natural. If humans engage in a three-person union, then that's natural. People use "unnatural" as an adjective in an attempt to mask their own personal beliefs as somehow being universal, as not being their own opinions.

You finding something to be disgusting or "unnatural" (whatever that means to you) isn't a basis for objecting to others doing that something. You'll have to do better than that if you wish to convince others.

Alternatively, you can decide that some things humans do are unnatural. However, top of any list has got to be driving and flying, so if you're against gay sex because it's "unnatural", I better not see you in a car or on a plane

28064212

28064212 wrote: »

Alternatively, you can decide that some things humans do are unnatural. However, top of any list has got to be driving and flying, so if you're against gay sex because it's "unnatural", I better not see you in a car or on a plane

That's exactly it. "Unnatural" as an adjective is more often than not completely meaningless, especially when used in a disparaging fashion, because it's definition is far from concrete and often entirely depends upon the context in which it is used and the person who is using it. Somebody will admonish homosexuality or polygamy because they're supposedly unnatural, yet avail of modern medicine and technology without issue, despite the latter being at least as unnatural as the former by their own definition. There's no consistency.

If the person does subscribe to a view that some things are natural and others unnatural, then they have to account for the fallacies of "what's natural is good" and "what's unnatural is bad." The view that there's little use in trying to define one thing as natural and another as unnatural, considering everything is a product of the natural world in one way or another, is an easier one to hold as it leads to none of these problems of definition.

I'd ask those who've objected to three-person civil-unions in this thread on the basis that they're supposedly unnatural to probe and question their own views a little more thoroughly. I'd bet that most of those who object to something because they consider it unnatural, really objective to it because they personally find it disgusting or displeasing. And as I said above, that's not a valid argument against something, at least not if you're trying to convince others of your views by its use.

Popinjay

gvn wrote: »

If the person does subscribe to a view that some things are natural and others unnatural, then they have to account for the fallacies of "what's natural is good" and "what's unnatural is bad."

I like to respond to that with 'Arsenic is natural, here, eat this.'

Aresenic is rather prominent in my thoughts at the moment anyway, just finished re-reading Feet of Clay.

matrim

In principal I've nothing against polygynous relationships. The main problem I'd have with legalising it would be the legal minefield it would create. Even normal divorce has so may problems with who gets custody, maintenance, etc. Trying to legislate for that with a multi-partnership family would be next to impossible especially in relation to kids.

If it were to ever happen, one thing that I think would have to be the case is that it becomes a full marriage between all participants i.e. A & B are married, A & C are married and B & C are also married and all partners have to be involved in the agreement. It can't just be A is married to B and A is married to C, but C and B aren't married.

Popinjay

matrim wrote: »

The main problem I'd have with legalising it would be the legal minefield it would create.

Kids-wise, I think sprogs need more of a say in where they end up than they're currently given in the Irish system anyway. Ask they kid where they want to live as their main residence and otherwise split custody/visitation rights equally, similar should be done in 2 person marriages in the opinion of this childless, unmarried chap.

Maintenance, dividing assets, etc, I agree it could be difficult and pre-nup agreements might be the only way but that's from 30 seconds of thought so I'm sure a better way could present itself if I, or anybody else, put their minds to it.

These things aren't necessarily handled very well in Ireland, and many other places, for two person, oppostie sex marriages at the moment so to be perfectly honest, if traditional marriage is still allowed despite these setbacks, there's no reason to prevent any other from of union on those grounds.

Edit: I agree with the second paragraph of your post though.

magicbastarder

Popinjay wrote: »

Kids-wise, I think sprogs need more of a say in where they end up than they're currently given in the Irish system anyway.

this would be an absolute minefield. the tug of war for a kid's emotions is bad enough as it is without turning it into a competition.

this goes into further detail on the discussion above about unnatural=bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy