• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,824
0
0
You knew it was going to happen to someone you know sooner or later.

You are sitting at a restaurant, enjoying a plate of veal scallopini, ready to order that last available bottle of the 2004 Vietti Barolo di Castiglione Falletto, when in walks the guy in the co-op down the hall.

He has been alternating between a busty brunette and a leggy blonde, entertaining them with his trust fund money, the bastid.

You can't help but overhear him offer up an engagement ring to first the blonde and then another one to the brunette. The rocks are big enough for the squeals to gain the attention of the entire restaurant.

He looks over to you and winks.

You are still paying off the first wife. And the twins the two of you have, well, they have just been accepted to both Spence and to Riverdale Country and you just know you will not win either way.

You wink back and grin. And keep grinning all the way through the tiramisu.

Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil

28 August 2012 Last updated at 14:08 ET

A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.

Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights.

She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.

But the move has angered some religious groups, while one lawyer described it as "absurd and totally illegal".

The three individuals, who have declined to speak to the press, have lived in Rio de Janeiro together for three years and share bills and other expenses.

Ms Domingues says they have already opened a joint bank account, which is also not prohibited by any law.

“We are only recognising what has always existed, we are not inventing anything”

According to Globo TV, the union was formalised three months ago, but only became public this week.

Nathaniel Santos Batista Junior, a jurist who helped draft the document, said the idea was to protect their rights in case of separation or death of a partner, Globo reports.

Ms Domingues, who is based in the Sao Paulo city of Tupa, said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a "family" had changed.

"We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything."

"For better or worse, it doesn't matter, but what we considered a family before isn't necessarily what we would consider a family today."

But lawyer Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva told the BBC it was "absurd and totally illegal", and "something completely unacceptable which goes against Brazilian values and morals".

Ms da Silva, who is president of the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers, says the union will not be allowed to remain in place.

Some religious groups have also voiced criticism of the move.

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.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,708
1
0
Another reason why the concept of marriage should be kept as a legal contract, rather than some gov't sponsored entity.

Also pics?

This one is from netherlands:
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
I don't have a problem with it, I can't find a compelling reason for it to be illegal.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,913
1,063
126
Something I never will understand is why religious groups pitch such a fit when people get married in a way outside of their view. Marriage isn't a religious invention. The concept has existed in every culture in history, religious and not. Just because they ALSO have marriage doesn't mean they have the right to dictate how people not within their religion get married. It'd be like if Catholics start screaming about how other people drink wine and eat crackers.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
I've supported plural marriage all along, unlike the hypocritical bigots who only believe marriage is between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman
 

schneiderguy

Lifer
Jun 26, 2006
10,763
31
91
It's best for society if men and women pair up.

In the natural state, there would be a few men that had multiple women, leaving a large number of men without anyone to make babbies with. When a man has no one to care for but himself, he will not produce at his full potential (more likely to take an easier/less stressful job). Someone along the way figured out that if you limit each man to only one wife, every man gets a wife, and every man will probably have babbies, which makes him work harder, which benefits society with increased production and tax revenue.

That being said, I don't think the government should ban men from having multiple wives (or women having multiple husbands). It's up to society to "encourage" people to do the right thing.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,276
103
106
Doesn't matter to me how many people they want to have in a relationship, but that isn't a marriage in my book. A marriage is between one man and one woman. Other relationships are fine by me, but I'll never see them as a marriage.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,824
0
0
I know that the LDS has renounced polygamy, but, based on the universal approval in the above comments, it seems quite a few of you might now be a bit more inclined to go with Mitt. Just in case.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,964
3,471
126
Imagine if all the rich men got to marry all the women in the world. Where would that leave the rest of us?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I don't have a problem with it, I can't find a compelling reason for it to be illegal.
It depends on if you believe marriage(civil unions) has a purpose other than basically being a narcissistic circle jerk or to extort benefits from the government.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,311
8
81
Religious groups should go fuck themselves and stick with believing in the invisible man in the sky. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to without interference from anyone else.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Religious groups should go fuck themselves and stick with believing in the invisible man in the sky. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to without interference from anyone else.
The problem with your logic there is that marriage is specifically asking for interference from society in your personal life.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I'm married and ive never wanted/asked for/or experienced society interferring in my personal life.
By getting married you are specifically asking for society to interfere with your life. You are asking society to endorse your relationship with your wife as "special".
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
17,752
8,700
136
Kadarin pretty much said what I was going to...


I'm undecided if I could handle two wives. I can think of pros and cons to such an arrangement... More than 2 definitely sounds like a lot of work and arguing though,
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
16,009
1,678
126
Kadarin pretty much said what I was going to...


I'm undecided if I could handle two wives. I can think of pros and cons to such an arrangement... More than 2 definitely sounds like a lot of work and arguing though,
This is why one woman needs to be the alpha of the harem. She manages shit, keeps the other ho... uhh, ladies in line. In return you feed her a little more.

See, I got this shit all figured out. :twisted:
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,860
1,638
136
My take away from this is that notaries in Brazil have a hell of a lot more authority than notaries in the US.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY