Brazil Allows 3 Person Marriage

*subhead*Destruction.*subhead*
Don't anyone even think that they're surprised by this. You can be dismayed, worried, and yes even horrified. But not surprised.

We've been playing cultural "Don't Break the Ice" for so long it was only a matter of time before things went kaboom. In fact, I think our culture has a kaboom fetish where we delight in taking apart the foundations of our culture until inevitably things go "Kaboom."

The part that worries me is that I'm not sure there's any will to clean up our mess and start building again any time soon.

The only surprise is that it's taken this long.

The Corner reports on a BBC report:
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...

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.”
Notice how in none of these stories does anyone ever consider how this redefining will affect children.

Comments

  1. Ten years ago, the gay lobby was saying it was hate speech to suggest that anyone would ever try to institute polygamy in a Western country, and that their agenda wasn't analogous or a slippery slope to that at all. Five years ago, the media began normalizing the image of polygamy. Now polygamy is arriving, and the media are making the first starts toward raising the subject of bestiality, while the gay lobby calls it hate speech to suggest any connection to their movement. At this rate, in five years polygamy will be treated by the elite as a "human right", bestiality will be making inroads,and in ten years bestiality will be an institution and in 15 years, a "human right". That's my prediction if we don't figure out how to take a stand first.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jacob had two wives...
    David had three...

    Just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're just a hater, Pat. Why do you want to stop three people from loving each other? All that matters is that they love each other. Now just don't ask me how I define "love" and we'll all get along just fine....

    ReplyDelete
  4. @theraineyview: You're a moron. In fact, you're all morons. Are you kidding me? Please explain how animals have the same legal standing as human beings, can read, let alone sign consent forms, contracts, etc. Three HUMANS--male, female, intersexed, gender-ambiguous, gay straight, bisexual, asexual, black, white, latino, asian, christian, jewish, muslim, i don't give a fuck what--HUMANS, i repeat, HUMAN BEINGS--three, five, eleven, i don't care how many--HUMAN BEINGS entering into loving relationships with one another has nothing to do with defiling animals. Stupidity has run rampant, it seems. Spend a little more time getting a handle on your perceptions of your own species as well as other species and spend a little less time trying to define human to human love by your narrow-minded, backwater, bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Hokie: the definition of "backwater" implies ignorance. Apparently you don't know that elite opinion really is trying to normalize bestiality? Whether you don't like people to point that out, or not, that's what's actually happening. Incest too. Pederasty too. So since you are, plainly, unaware of the trends of elite opinion, it is you who is "backwater". So sorry.

    And speaking of "our own species", the evolution of anatomically modern humans is characterized by—if not catalyzed by—the development of a monogamous, nuclear-family mating structure. This is evidenced by the decreased size-difference between the sexes, without a concomitant increase in testicle size (our testes are roughly 1/4 the size of chimpanzees') that would be evidence of a shift to the chimp model of promiscuity. Polygamy, that is to say, is regressive, the behavior of gorillas and orangs. You can act like the other apes if you like; we'll be over here with the specialized tools and the coherent speech, mmmkay?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Hokie: That's funny you should say something like that because liberals and PETA activists have been fighting forever to make animals equal to humans. After all, we're not supposed to hunt them, experiment on them, eat them or build on their land. Liberals have tried to put animals on the same level as humans for decades. Oops... I guess the PETA guys have been wasting their time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would just like to point out that what is mentioned in the article is NOT analogous to the time of the patriarchs in the Old Testament. What the patriarchs had were multiple simultaneous marriages. Each marriage only had one husband and one wife. When an Old Testament patriarch with multiple wives died each of the wives was a widow. In the article above a single marriage with three members is described. If the man dies, the women will NOT be widows, but still be married to each other.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do not understand why this is a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hal Duston, apparently you are not familiar with the story of Patriarch Jacob, who married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. It's in the book of Genesis.

    In I Samuel (called 1 Kings in some Bibles), Hannah, the mother of the Prophet Samuel, was one of two simultaneous wives.

    And, as has been mentioned, David and Solomon had multiple wives at the same time.

    Doesn't it bother you to pop off about things you clearly know nothing about?

    ReplyDelete
  10. It doesn't matter if people from the OLD testament were polygamous. Jesus clearly rejects polygamy just like the less primitive books from the old testament do.

    The Bible wasn't written in one day, it was written during the span or more than 10,000 years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Polygamy is wrong because marriage should be an arrangement between two equals. One man and one woman, both equal in rights and as human beings. One man and two women is not a relationship amongst equals. In Islam men treat women as cattle, Muslim men have as many wives as their money allows them, just as if women were cows or dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jack: I actually don't care for the distinction Hal is making, and it'd take more time and thought than I'm willing to put into it to figure out if there's any merit to it (given that even the situation he describes is no permitted now), but you have missed the point entirely and I hate to see people's views misrepresented.

    He said a man is married to each of several women. This may be at the same time. But the women are not married to each other. Whereas in the case in Brazil, it is 3 people all "married" to each other. This is different. The OT Patriarchs did the first, not the second. It is a distinction.

    Whether it's a helpful distinction I'll leave to others, but spouting insults after clearly missing the point is unbecoming.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Before bestiality becomes normalized they will have to normalize pedophilia. It is already started in several western countries where the sexual age of consent has be reduced to 12 years of age in several western countries. Once you normalize pedophilia then the argument that animals are at least as smart as a 6 year old so why can it not consent.

    The problem with homosexual marriage is it reduces marriage to a mere contract of sexual favors. It takes marriage from a social contract that helps to build society, to a mere personal one with no role in society. By that definition any "marriage" contract that meets this requirement must be allowed.

    As for the old testament patriarchs multiple marriages were tolerated by God due to the hardness (lack of generosity) on the part of the unredeemed Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Hokey F, if you're not a troll, everything you posted is so clouded by angry emotionality that any point you were trying to make is obscured. So, Raineyview is a bigot because she doesn't define love and marriage the way that YOU do. What does that make you? (oops, I dropped a crumb of troll food!)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Patrick McCoy, please explain what homosexuality and bestiality have to do with the apparently poorly written civil union law in Brazil.

    Please also explain how an animal can give its consent to sexual congress with a human being.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jack,

    I am quite familiar Jacob.

    I said that the patriarchs had "multiple simultaneous marriages". How does that differ from had "multiple wives at the same time"?

    Rachel and Leah were not married to each other, but only to Jacob. This differs from the situation with the two women described in the article who are married to each other as well as to the man.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jack, homosexuality has said that marriage can be re-defined from what has been accepted as the norm for a long time. Bestiality and polygamy say the same thing.

    So if it can be defined however we want it to be, we can define it as a relationship between one human giving consent and an animal that shows affection to that human. Sound ridiculous? So did same-sex marriage many years ago.

    Also, since we are in the process of re-defining marriage, why are we so focused on having love being part of it? Why can't a sister and brother who have not found someone else get married so they can reap the benefits? Isn't it hateful to deny them that right? It does not sound any more ridiculous than what the gay lobby has been spouting.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Dennis: that last thing, RE: sisters and brothers getting married for the benefits, was the custom in Ancient Egypt among the upper classes. Though, I'm not certain they actually consummated those marriages; since they practiced polygamy, a man could marry other women normal-like and just marry his sister to be sure she was taken care of.

    As for the thing about this being different from past polygamy: it's worse. It's a line-marriage from the pipe-dreams Robert Heinlein cluttered up his later books (the "seniles" in contrast with the "juveniles") with. It is true that in most historical polygamy (as well as the polygamy practiced by dominant males among many nonhuman primates) the females were only married to the male, not each other—but that doesn't affect it being polygamy. "Polygamy" means "many spouses"; it's the same "gam-" as in "gamete".

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hohie Faggot: "i repeat, HUMAN BEINGS--three, five, eleven, i don't care how many--HUMAN BEINGS entering into loving relationships with one another" It was tried in love-ins in the 1960s. Everyone slept on the floor in a circle with their heads touching. Everyone had sex with everyone else. Many had nervous breakdowns. They themselves said that it does not work. There is something magnificent with another person being faithful and loyal that brings a joy to a relationship that cannot be synthesized by physical intercourse. It is called covenant, the spiritual relationship with God and man exemplified through the physical relationship between one man and one woman.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hokie Faggot: Man, Homo Sapiens, the human being is composed of a physical body and a rational, immortal soul. Man loves with his soul. That is why it is so terrible to destroy a person's soul. If all a man wants is sexual satisfaction, he will find that he is addicted with no redeeming qualities. He will find that sex has him.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment