Marriage

I thought the topic of marriage needed to have its own thread and not be a sub-topic in the politics threads because it goes beyond just politics.

Here's a new article about a three-way marriage in Brasil that is causing a huge uproar:

Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil

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.

More at:

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

-------------------------------------------------------

As I've said before, more than gay marriage is at stake in the discussion here in the U.S. Once you've completely changed the idea and definition of what it means to be married by allowing two men or two women to marry each other, you basically abandon all rights to set limits on marriage in the future. Why should marriage be limited to just two people? Once you've found that 2 men have a right to marry each other (and that it must be recognized by the law), what right does any government on any level in the U.S. have to tell three or four people that they cannot marry one another? And once three or four people have married one another, what constitutes a breaking of the marital bond i.e. adultery? Who gets custody of the kids? How do you divide assets in a divorce? Among four people? Who gets the dog and the cats?

I don't see any end to the amount of permutations that one could have when it comes to marriage. The combinations are endless.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

As I've said before, more than gay marriage is at stake in the discussion here in the U.S.

Yup. I, too, have noticed the massive voice of the pro-polygamy lobby in the United States. Their cries cannot be ignored any longer.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Once you've completely changed the idea and definition of what it means to be married by allowing two men or two women to marry each other, you basically abandon all rights to set limits on marriage in the future. Why should marriage be limited to just two people?

By setting new limits, you abandon all rights to set limits. You're going to have to explain this one to me because I'm not getting it.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Once you've found that 2 men have a right to marry each other (and that it must be recognized by the law), what right does any government on any level in the U.S. have to tell three or four people that they cannot marry one another?

The exact same right states currently have to stop gay couples from getting married. You honestly think the state loses all legal authority if they redefine something? Are you drunk?

I hear age-of-consent laws have changed over time, by the way. Pretty soon everybody will be fucking kids.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

And once three or four people have married one another, what constitutes a breaking of the marital bond i.e. adultery? Who gets custody of the kids? How do you divide assets in a divorce? Among four people? Who gets the dog and the cats?

I like your style of argument. Can't find problems with something you don't like? No problem! Just find something for which no demand really exists, assert without proper reasoning that it will happen if you allow the first thing, point out practical problems associated with the second thing (they can even be problems a small child could easily resolve, if you're really struggling), and hope nobody notices that you've not really said anything about the problem under discussion! Stunning.

Doesn't seem worth the time or the money.

I'll let you know what I think in 7 years.

I'm not even sure if the ink is dry on any divorce papers of if the last trace of Kris Humphries' splooge which was shot deep inside Kim's orifices has dribbled out yet but Kanye West is all set to marry her.



What would you do if your brother or son bought her home? Apart from steal glances at her ass.

An interesting article against marriage.
http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/26/george-bernard-shaw-on-marriage/

Marriage should be banned.

If no one can ever get married than everyone is in the same boat. That's fair.

The notion of gay marriage as some form of gateway drug to the devolution of marriage in general has always amused me. Just be honest and admit that the idea of two men or two women together makes you uncomfortable.

j

You make it appear as if it holds no advantages for men, Ambler?
What about the fact that married men tend to live longer on average than unmarried ones (please do not make the obvious 'it only appears longer' joke )

n

http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/B0328480-D08F-4095-B5E4-58FCD4650A3B/0/index1314.pdf

A study from the Dutch bureau of statistics that came to the conclusion that married men have a life expectancy that is around four years better than that of their unmarried counterparts.

It seems odd to define the worth of a marriage solely by the settlement that follows upon its failure and ending.

Salomé wrote:

The notion of gay marriage as some form of gateway drug to the devolution of marriage in general has always amused me. Just be honest and admit that the idea of two men or two women together makes you uncomfortable.

It's backwards. Marriage has devolved to the point where we we can now openly discuss and put forth laws that give gays, lesbians, polygamists, and sex relations between siblings a legal status. If the millions of couples that broke up during the 60's that started this trend had stayed together, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now. With the absolute breakdown of the nuclear family, everything else has now rushed in to fill the void.

Two women or men doesn't make me uncomfortable. Three women or three men wouldn't make me uncomfortable. It's when a baby is involved that it changes things. No matter how much their heart is in the right place, the experience of two women raising the boy cannot compare to having a dad in your life that takes you to ball games (or play ball), shows you how to use a razor, goes to cars races with you, goes fishing, or talks to you about girls.

A butch dyke could do all of those.

Largo's Shark wrote:

A butch dyke could do all of those.

It also does not factor in the families where the dad does not stick around to do those things.

Listening to it now Walecs. Sounds great! Nice find.  :music:

Makeshift Python wrote:

If Little Johnny can't fish because he doesn't have a dad, who cares?

Little Johnny?

George Clooney says "Yes" to Anal Alamuddin:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/george-clooney-marries-amal-alamuddin-736125

Let's hope this marriage is better than BATMAN AND ROBIN.

o

Erica Ambler wrote:

I suspect George has said yes to anal many times over the years.

LOL! I see my mistake: I put an extra "d" in Alamudin.

Anyone else married over 5 years?

*raises legs*

I'm nearing 8...

Anyone else been by themselves for quite some time now, and has got used to that and can't be arsed with all the compromises relationships inevitably bring?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Santa wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

a dad in your life that takes you to ball games (or play ball), shows you how to use a razor, goes to cars races with you, goes fishing, or talks to you about girls.

I don't disagree with all of your argument but a) there's no reason a woman can't do those things and b) just having a father around doesn't mean he'll do any of those things, so you need to come up with a better argument for man+woman=good and anything else=bad.

Man+Woman doesn't automatically equal good. The *IDEAL* would be a man and a woman who love each other, respect each other, stay faithful to each other, and raise the children with each other as a married couple. Any other situation where a child does not have this is less than ideal. I've seen enough "opposite" marriages go south due  to adultery, domestic violence, drug abuse, etc...to know that having a certain gender doesn't make you a good parent.

However, despite what modern sociologists try to tell us, men and women *ARE* different, and therefore bring different elements into child-rearing that the other partner/spouse will find difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. Balance is needed.

Life experience also helps. It's a lot less awkward for a woman to talk to her daughter about upcoming changes to her body than it would be for a man, and most boys probably don't want to have the sex talk with their mom if it can be avoided.

A woman *could* do some of the things for her son that a father could, but would she have as much interest in doing them? I don't think most women/mothers are interested in working on cars. Most women would rather watch a man throw a football than have to go out and show her son how to throw it. Most women I've known had very little interest in baiting a hook and then fishing. I mean, there's just an almost endless list of things boys/fathers do that a mother would have zero-to-little interest in; that's not patronizing or sexist; it's just a reality of the way we are hardwired.

Men and women *ARE* different, and that's okay. That's true diversity.

Too many generalisations there for me. I know what you say is supposed to be the 'norm', but as time goes on I find fewer and fewer people and fewer and fewer families conform to the picture you paint.

Norms are the limits people willingly inflict upon their own experiences.

b

Many people (men and women alike) are shit at marriage. Or even just long-term relationships.