Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Menage-a-trois marriages?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    kneemos wrote: »
    My cabbage is curly.

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


  • Options
    #33
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    That man is a hero!


  • Options
    #34
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    hardCopy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    kneemos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,617 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    hardCopy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    kneemos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,617 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,236 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »
    The Telegraph has overegged this quite a bit.

    They're not the only ones.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #40
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,777 Mod ✭✭✭✭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 ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,450 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,450 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Tazium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 919 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    reganreggie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 437 ✭✭reganreggie


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


  • Options
    #48
    kneemos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,617 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    kneemos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,617 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #51
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,191 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,464 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    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.

    In islam, if a man has more than one wife, he had to be able to supply separate homes for each, keep each in a standard equivalent to the other, spend an equal time with each and the first wife has to agree to the marriage. In the case of third wifes, the first two wifes have to agree.

    But of course in places like saudi, even though this is law women are still treated like second class citizens. Think of it like the southern US after emancipation. Black people might have been officially equal, but in reality the white polulation still made life ****e for them and the courts always sided with the white population.


  • Options
    #53
    Tazium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Tazium


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    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.

    Agreed, such a model in this society would be complicated in terms of co-habitation and closeness I'd imagine. Some extended families are quite involved while others aren't.
    kneemos wrote: »
    You make it sound like a pennance,why bother with marriage at all in that case?

    It was a thought, not a suggestion. Why bother with marriage at all? That's off topic and worthy of another thread. There are parents who are not married to each other and is this vastly different from the thought suggested? As for marriage being a penance, not all are happy, therefore some are unhappy. Is an unhappy marriage a penance?


  • Options
    #54
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,450 ✭✭✭Morag


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


  • Options
    #55
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    These smug Yank satires are very tedious.
    "Betty" doesn't explain traditional marriage (tradition in the Western world for many centuries defines marriage as between two people of opposite gender) or even Christian marriage, but simply relates a load of Old Testament fairy stories.
    Now, I'm a fairly ardent atheist of the Buddhist persuasion, and I don't have a problem with gay partnerships, but this sort of misrepresentation seems to me to do more harm to the argument it seeks to support, that of gay marriage, than it does to that it seeks to undermine.


Advertisement
Advertisement