Three person civil union in Brazil

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