Menage-a-trois marriages?

Cavehill Red · 29-08-2012 12:16AM #1

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 · 29-08-2012 12:18AM

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! · 29-08-2012 12:19AM

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 · 29-08-2012 12:20AM

Giselle wrote: »

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

Indeed, that was what I meant to say.

opinion guy · 29-08-2012 12:20AM

Awesome

ITS_A_BADGER · 29-08-2012 12:20AM

Giselle wrote: »

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

twill be back door and front door, No arguments

Colmustard · 29-08-2012 12:24AM

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

Chuck Stone · 29-08-2012 12:37AM

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 · 29-08-2012 12:40AM

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 · 29-08-2012 12:41AM

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

Morag · 29-08-2012 12:52AM

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! · 29-08-2012 12:53AM

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 · 29-08-2012 12:57AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:04AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:10AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:11AM

Are Mormons not polygamists?

Cavehill Red · 29-08-2012 01:25AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:29AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:33AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:37AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:38AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:39AM

wasn't polygamy big in the OT?

LETHAL LADY · 29-08-2012 01:42AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:43AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:55AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:57AM

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 · 29-08-2012 01:59AM

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

fasttalkerchat · 29-08-2012 02:21AM

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 · 29-08-2012 02:44AM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Milk?

Mmmmm eh.

Cavehill Red · 29-08-2012 02:47AM

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 · 29-08-2012 02:57AM

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.

Menage-a-trois marriages?

Comments