Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three-person civil union sparks controversy in Brazil
BBC ^ | 8/28/2012

Posted on 08/28/2012 3:32:59 PM PDT by markomalley

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: alice; bob; brasil; brazil; carol; civilunions; gay; gaymarriage; gayrights; gays; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; homosexuals; kenyanbornmuzzie; lesbian; lesbians; marriage; marriages; moralabsolutes; polyamory; polygamy; saopaulo; swrdswllwngsdshw; ted; threewayswitch; wedding; weddings; willandgrace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 08/28/2012 3:33:07 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: markomalley
And, so it begins. This is inevitable, once you redefine marriage to include gays; what possible reason could you give to NOT redefine it to include all other types of arrangements.

The acceptance of "gay marriage" is simply the beginning of the end of marriage, period.

3 posted on 08/28/2012 3:37:40 PM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

No surprise except that it hasn’t already happened here in the USA.

In fact, if I was single I would convince 2 friends to march to the courthouse and file for a 3-way marriage. Since all that is required is “love” I/we need only declare it.

I wish someone would have the stones to do this.


4 posted on 08/28/2012 3:37:40 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (obozo could bring back literal slavery with chains and still he will get 97+% of the black vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

but.. what’s a “civil union” in Brazil? I used to claim my roommates were “domestic partners” for purposes of getting costco membership.


5 posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:19 PM PDT by Rio (Tempis fugit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
they have already opened a joint bank account, which is also not prohibited by any law.

..if it's illegal how'd they do it?....guess the bank goes along with it

6 posted on 08/28/2012 3:39:46 PM PDT by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Next stops: incest, bestiality, and pedophilia!


7 posted on 08/28/2012 3:40:03 PM PDT by lazypadawan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doogle

"..must not watch TV while posting

8 posted on 08/28/2012 3:41:58 PM PDT by Doogle ((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Coming soon to a West Coast state near you.


9 posted on 08/28/2012 3:42:08 PM PDT by Baynative (A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

B/S they should accept 3 person marriage as if theydo not they discriminate and I wish some folks would sue to get this especially in states which have this on the ballot this year and in the future.

Many of us said years ago that this would happen but the left only wants their sham marriage.

See my tagline


10 posted on 08/28/2012 3:42:20 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

What happens when this “trio” emigrates to the U.S?


11 posted on 08/28/2012 3:43:44 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lazypadawan
Next stops: incest, bestiality, and pedophilia!

Oh, now that's you just being silly...it's only about gey marriage 'rights'...nothing more.../huge sarc

12 posted on 08/28/2012 3:44:43 PM PDT by libertarian27 (Check my profile page for the FReeper Online Cookbook 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It happens here too. Wife and I have been watching a show about polyamory on Showtime, and one of the groups is having a public commitment ceremony in California.


13 posted on 08/28/2012 3:45:04 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

New Paltz NY to follow suit and top it with a three person and non-human civil union next week... /hoping to be sarc, New Paltz might actually do it.


14 posted on 08/28/2012 3:45:44 PM PDT by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It’s only a matter of time before you see all kinds of marriages. Certainly there’s more historical basis for a man having multiple wives than there is for 2 men being “married”. Once you define marriage as “2 people who love each other”, the next logical question is “Why do we need to stop at 2?”


15 posted on 08/28/2012 3:46:04 PM PDT by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This is simply polygamy marriage, isn’t it? The Muslims do it. The old-style Mormons did it. Heck, the Old Testament is full of people with many wives. I’m really not into such thing, but this is not new at all.


16 posted on 08/28/2012 3:49:13 PM PDT by paudio (Post-racial society: When we can legitimately hire and fire a Black man without feeling guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

And it’s only the beginning...I remember a chuckle story about a man in the ME being made to marry a donkey. It’s becoming a reality.


17 posted on 08/28/2012 3:50:24 PM PDT by bronxville (“We’ve Got A Revolution That Has To Take Place”” - Obama 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Or, as Charlie Sheen would put it, “that’s how I roll.”

Thanks markomalley.


18 posted on 08/28/2012 3:50:36 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The whole Muslim world accepts marriage with multiple wives. This has a lot more support than gay marriage. Next will be demands to allow child brides.


19 posted on 08/28/2012 3:51:06 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor (this space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The logical next step.

The really stupid part is that these people argue as if the license creates the marriage. As marriages go, the license is a meaningless slip of paper. It is about the covenant, not the paper. The license is government acknowledgement of the covenant ... a license without the covenant is just a tax break.

The truth is, gay couples can’t be married, no matter how many licenses they have. Neither can trios. Honestly, there are some straight couples with licenses that aren’t as married as they think.

SnakeDoc


20 posted on 08/28/2012 4:01:03 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens, Justified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
...beginning of the end of marriage, period.

I think, the end of civilization.

21 posted on 08/28/2012 4:05:57 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
No, it's not the "beginning" of the end of marriage. It's pret'near the end of the end.

Marriage was already comprehensively deconstructed by heterosexuals, long before the homosexuals swarmed in to claim its parts and bits. Through civil marriage, easy divorce/remarriage, and contraception, heteros redefined marriage from being a Natural Law-anchored, fertile exclusive lifelong union, to being a construct of positive "say-so" law, sequentially multipartnered, and sterile.

Marriage --- as obviously defined in all of human history across centuries, continents, and civilizations --- makes sense only as a setting for procreative sex which then defines two-and-only-two people, the male and the female, as the responsible parents. People of random genders rubbing non-procreative body parts together don't require solemn durable societal recognitions, responsibilities or covenants. In such case, there is no need to specify one, two, three, any number of people, and it doesn't matter whether the non-procreative parts are elbows, anuses, noses, knees or reproductively disabled genitals.

Who queered marriage? Heterosexuals. They "redefined" it. It's inevitable that the various kinds of queers would now claim the mutated thing as their own.

22 posted on 08/28/2012 4:12:56 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Honest to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
No, it's not the "beginning" of the end of marriage. It's pret'near the end of the end.

Marriage was already comprehensively deconstructed by heterosexuals, long before the homosexuals swarmed in to claim its parts and bits. Through civil marriage, easy divorce/remarriage, and contraception, heteros redefined marriage from being a Natural Law-anchored, fertile exclusive lifelong union, to being a construct of positive "say-so" law, sequentially multipartnered, and sterile.

Marriage --- as obviously defined in all of human history across centuries, continents, and civilizations --- makes sense only as a setting for procreative sex which then defines two-and-only-two people, the male and the female, as the responsible parents. People of random genders rubbing non-procreative body parts together don't require solemn durable societal recognitions, responsibilities or covenants. In such case, there is no need to specify one, two, three, any number of people, and it doesn't matter whether the non-procreative parts are elbows, anuses, noses, knees or reproductively disabled genitals.

Who queered marriage? Heterosexuals. They "redefined" it. It's inevitable that the various kinds of queers would now claim the mutated thing as their own.

23 posted on 08/28/2012 4:14:14 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Honest to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: manc

Dead on.

When it comes here, it should emphasize that government getting into the marriage business (tax breaks, etc.) WAS the problem.

It should highlight that Marriage is a religious, holy covenant. It is not a contract between two men or three men or six women...


24 posted on 08/28/2012 4:18:00 PM PDT by ReaganGeneration2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Repeat after me: “There is no slippery slope! There is no slippery slope!”


25 posted on 08/28/2012 4:19:48 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (You didn't build that. The private sector is doing fine. We tried our plan and it worked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio; markomalley
No, it;'s not simple polygamous marriage, because in polygamy the marriage is still always about the union of a man and a woman. In other words, the man may be married to two wives, but the wives are not married to each other.

Polygamy is therefore rationally ordered to the social purposes of marriage, namely, the identification of the mother and father of a child, and the reciprocal responsibilities thereof. Polygamy still binds together the social, economic, legal and genetic aspects of father and mother into a unity, for the sake of the offspring.

Polyamory --- at least as I understand it --- posits a spousal relation betwen the women, as well as between each woman and the man. Therefore it veers away from the procreative form, which is the only rational public purpose for marriage to begin with.

Any other kind of agreement can be a private contract. That's what contracts are for.

26 posted on 08/28/2012 4:23:59 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I’m starting to think we just drop out of these debates. Or at least make them tell you what “advantages” they want. If they want to be able to visit in hospitals or get a tax break, say “ok, go for it”.

When they want a priest or pastor or rabbi to preside, let the debate begin.


27 posted on 08/28/2012 4:24:46 PM PDT by ReaganGeneration2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: manc

Think of the divorce settlement. He has to pay each of his wives half of everything!


28 posted on 08/28/2012 4:27:35 PM PDT by shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: paudio; YankeeReb

The difference is that in polygamy the women are both married to the man, but not to each other. So it’s still between “a man and a woman”, it’s just that the man has two marriages at the same time.


29 posted on 08/28/2012 4:29:27 PM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

If “Marriage equality” applies to couples, why not 3-somes, 4-somes, etc.?


30 posted on 08/28/2012 4:33:48 PM PDT by MulberryDraw (That which cannot be paid, won't be paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Marriage --- as obviously defined in all of human history across centuries, continents, and civilizations --- makes sense only as a setting for procreative sex which then defines two-and-only-two people,

No, polygamy has been common throughout history for practical reasons. If a high proportion of men died in war, polygamy both took care of the widows and orphans, and allowed the clan, tribe or whaterever to procrate at the maximum rate.

31 posted on 08/28/2012 4:34:54 PM PDT by Hugin ("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Life imitates Monty Python

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvuXu1_iF0


32 posted on 08/28/2012 4:37:12 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

33 posted on 08/28/2012 4:50:30 PM PDT by TSgt (The only reason I have one in the chamber at all times, is because it is impossible to have two in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReaganGeneration2
But why should they have a tax break? I mean, I'm all for tax breaks --- give me a break for my good looks --- but as I understand it, legal perks for marriage are (or were) justified only because husband and wife were doing something that transcended their adult self-interest and extended out to benefit society. Namely, they are engaged in the long-term process of transmitting human life to the next generation, thereby creating the next productive "incoming" class upon whose existence we all depend in the natural succession of generations.

By contrast, what people do on the exclusive basis of their own adult self-interest is of no interest to the rest of us. Why should it be subsidized?

Politically, natural marriage can be, and ought to be, defended by its public purposes via Natural Law; it should not need -- in the political forum --- to be justified by Supernatural Law.

Though I'm beginning to wonder about that. I have noticed that people who lack the faith to accept Supernatural Law, lack also the reason to grasp Natural Law.

And when human beings sink below the natural, they do not sink to the bestial: they sink to the demonic.

34 posted on 08/28/2012 4:53:32 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ReaganGeneration2
But why should they have a tax break? I mean, I'm all for tax breaks --- give me a break for my good looks --- but as I understand it, legal perks for marriage are (or were) justified only because husband and wife were doing something that transcended their adult self-interest and extended out to benefit society. Namely, they are engaged in the long-term process of transmitting human life to the next generation, thereby creating the next productive "incoming" class upon whose existence we all depend in the natural succession of generations.

By contrast, what people do on the exclusive basis of their own adult self-interest is of no interest to the rest of us. Why should it be subsidized?

Politically, natural marriage can be, and ought to be, defended by its public purposes via Natural Law; it should not need -- in the political forum --- to be justified by Supernatural Law.

Though I'm beginning to wonder about that. I have noticed that people who lack the faith to accept Supernatural Law, lack also the reason to grasp Natural Law.

And when human beings sink below the natural, they do not sink to the bestial: they sink to the demonic.

35 posted on 08/28/2012 4:53:53 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bronxville
I remember a chuckle story about a man in the ME being made to marry a donkey. It’s becoming a reality.

Was it pregnant?

36 posted on 08/28/2012 4:55:26 PM PDT by Eaker (Stripping Americans of their freedom and dignity and rubbing their noses in it is a very bad idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Japan is close to developing a lovely lady who would make a perfect "wife" by certain standards. I want her, so if my wife will agree then we have a right to marry her and to demand that other people recognize and celebrate our marriage. If anyone refuses to support our happy moment with the cake, venue, flowers, or other commodities that we demand, then our lawyer should be able to punish them in court. What right do they have to make their own choices in life when we want to make our own choices for our lives . . . and for theirs?

37 posted on 08/28/2012 4:58:40 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
You are right. I would have done better to say "Marriage, whether monogamous or polygynous....makes sense only as a setting for procreative sex which then defines a particular man and a particular woman as the natural, social, and legal parents of children."

Polygyny (not for everyone --- the numbers don't work out! --- but for the top males) is certainly more common across cultures than strict monogamy, and it fits the pattern of reproductive fitness esp. in societies where many men are missing or disabled. But these new so-called "marriage" forms being pressed upon us today, have little or nothing to do with reproductive fitness.

These new marriages are also, I will venture to say, inevitably statist, because they have no obvious social reinforcement from deepseated religious/cutural or customary practice, and thus require constant redefining and intricate negotiation and enforcement via the legal apparatus, lawyers, judges ---- ultimately, the state.

38 posted on 08/28/2012 5:05:10 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watchin'." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation.Yes, I believe you're right. It's called polyamory. While polygamy is accepted in many cultures, I I'm not sure polyamory is. Still, it's not going to be totally different from those non-monogamous relations.

Arrangement regarding familial roles can arise to their needs, just like in polygamy societies. In some society, the kin line follows both sides (bilineal) so that matters such as inheritance, care for the elderly, etc., are done through discretion of the parties involved.

39 posted on 08/28/2012 5:07:13 PM PDT by paudio (Post-racial society: When we can legitimately hire and fire a Black man without feeling guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
They're jumping for joy at Bishop Willard's house over this news!


40 posted on 08/28/2012 5:14:17 PM PDT by Mormon Cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz

Exactly. The homosexuals get furiously angry when you compare their non-procreative arrangements to others. But there really is no difference.


41 posted on 08/28/2012 5:19:38 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: manc

Aren’t there some polygamy suits filed regarding discrimination? Is the info on them getting buried? Or have judges dismissed them?


42 posted on 08/28/2012 5:30:47 PM PDT by CPO retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Well, If Salma Hayek was up to breaking the rules.....


43 posted on 08/28/2012 5:30:47 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“These new marriages are also, I will venture to say, inevitably statist, because they have no obvious social reinforcement from deepseated religious/cutural or customary practice, and thus require constant redefining and intricate negotiation and enforcement via the legal apparatus, lawyers, judges —— ultimately, the state.”

They couldn’t punish anyone that doesn’t buy into it without the state. A few people saying they are all married are not really married. A few people saying they are all married because they have a piece of paper from the state still aren’t married, but now have a more ready means to punish if you don’t want to act like they are.

Freegards


44 posted on 08/28/2012 5:57:10 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CPO retired

there was a case up in Canada I know of but I have heard from others a couple of cases here and of curse if this is the case the emdia will ignore it knowing it will hurt their precious homosexual sham marriage


45 posted on 08/28/2012 6:30:56 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

But didn’t all the gay activists get upset when people said that legalizing same sex “marriage” would lead to legalized polygamy? Actually, if the Massachusetts court is right that two men or two women have the constitutional right to redefine marriage and “marry”, why doesn’t the same apply to polygamists, or polyandrists, or incestuous relationships, or bestial relationships. Who is the government to tell people whom they can love?


46 posted on 08/28/2012 6:51:13 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReaganGeneration2
once marriage is redefined then all sorts of marriage is allowed and the homosexuals have already used their sham marriage to push further laws like adoption, discrimination, teaching to 5 year olds etc.

Either marriage is between one man and one woman or anything.

Cousins, 9 wives, 3 husbands, frigging donkeys etc

47 posted on 08/28/2012 6:52:22 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mormon Cricket

Mitt and Ann are a wonderful example of monogamous marriage, and I have never heard him promote polygamy in any way. Shame on you.


48 posted on 08/28/2012 6:54:35 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: lazypadawan

Yep. The Sandusky thing was just ahead of its time.


49 posted on 08/28/2012 6:57:51 PM PDT by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
And, so it begins. This is inevitable, once you redefine marriage to include gays; what possible reason could you give to NOT redefine it to include all other types of arrangements.

I agree. The recent SCOTUS decisions leave no room whatever to ban polygamy. What about bi-sexuals? Don't they have the same rights as others? So the argument will go, and they'll be right under the current state of the law, IMHO.

The acceptance of "gay marriage" is simply the beginning of the end of marriage, period.

I respectfully disagree. Gays didn't begin the whole "redefinition" of marriage movement. Rather, Christians did. First, birth control became acceptable, despite the fact that nearly all Christian denominations condemned it for 2,000 years. Second, divorce for cause, like adultery, grew in acceptance, until finally "no fault" became the norm. This made the marriage contract terminable at will unilaterally by either party for any reason or no reason. The no fault divorce law was signed into law in California by none other than Ronald Reagan.

Ultimately, Christians had redefined marriage to the point where gays could honestly say "hey, your "marriages" look an awful lot like our relationships. Kids are completely optional, and there's no lifelong commitment. We pay our taxes like everybody else, so we should be entitled to the same opportunity to avail ourselves of that institution, now called marriage." And, frankly speaking, they were right about that. We do have a little thing called equal protection of the laws.

Pope Paul VI was a prophet.

We Christians have none to blame but ourselves.

50 posted on 08/28/2012 7:29:01 PM PDT by Gluteus Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson