Civil Unions of Three

[Zaac]

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.

Three Folks Joined Together

Yep, when we start to blur the line between right and wrong, this is what we get.

 

[preachinjesus]

I recently heard a prominent gay marriage advocate say that he can make no objection to bigamy or polygamy given his position. Several others on the panel agreed.

We are living in strange times.

 

[Aaron]

All civil law has its roots in the institution of marriage. Once its natural basis is rejected, nothing can be called wrong or immoral.

 

[targus]

Yep, when we start to blur the line between right and wrong, this is what we get.

Your buddy Obama is in favor of gay marriage.

Your vote to give him a second term may get you this too.

You are as transparent as glass. :laugh:

 

[menageriekeeper]

Ya'll remind me how many wives Kings David and Solomon had? Just because we might not like the idea of a polygamous marriage doesn't mean we should enforce our opinions on others or the gov should enforce it's views on us.

I find it funny that ya'll yell your heads off about taxes on the rich and declare you want the gov out of our lives and our pocketbooks and then turn around and say the gov should regulate marriages. Can't ya'll see the contradiction??

 

[billwald]

In the US biggest complication is the tax law.

 

[menageriekeeper]

What Bilwald? You think the IRS can't figure out how to tax us?

 

[Zaac]

Your buddy Obama is in favor of gay marriage.

Your vote to give him a second term may get you this too.

You are as transparent as glass. :laugh:

Ahh the false god worshiper supporter is griping that someone might vote for the other anti-Christ. :laugh:

Contrary to your attempt to bear false witness, ere'body already know that I ain't voting for either of the anti-Christs.

So gripe all you want about gay marriage while you cast your vote for false god worshiping.

 

[preachinjesus]

Ya'll remind me how many wives Kings David and Solomon had? Just because we might not like the idea of a polygamous marriage doesn't mean we should enforce our opinions on others or the gov should enforce it's views on us.

And which of the polygamous unions was condoned by God or Scripture?

I find it funny that ya'll yell your heads off about taxes on the rich and declare you want the gov out of our lives and our pocketbooks and then turn around and say the gov should regulate marriages. Can't ya'll see the contradiction??

Oh I don't say that at all, I think the government should get out the marriage recognition business all together. However, I do think there is a solid discussion to be made about what happens in polygamous marriages. Particularly as it devalues women and debases their dignity. I'm happy to have that conversation. Isn't it interesting that overwhelmingly polygamous marriages favor men? There is something about this that I think we need to discuss.

 

[Revmitchell]

Ya'll remind me how many wives Kings David and Solomon had? Just because we might not like the idea of a polygamous marriage doesn't mean we should enforce our opinions on others or the gov should enforce it's views on us.

Wow!

 

[Jedi Knight]

Wow!

I affirm that WOW!

 

[saturneptune]

All civil law has its roots in the institution of marriage. Once its natural basis is rejected, nothing can be called wrong or immoral.

I see no difference between the subject of the op and a same sex couple being married in the US. If is wrong, it is wrong. Neither one is more wrong than the other, just another variation of perversion.

 

[billwald]

The tax code and social security legislation would have to be rewritten.

Does anyone think homosexuals will stay married when they turn 65 or whatever and discover they will lose a third of their potential SS check?

 

[targus]

Contrary to your attempt to bear false witness, ere'body already know that I ain't voting for either of the anti-Christs.

As I said - You are as transparent as glass.

 

[Zaac]

As I said - You are as transparent as glass.

You worry about your vote in support of false-god worshiping and I'll handle mine.:wavey:

 

[Aaron]

Ya'll remind me how many wives Kings David and Solomon had? Just because we might not like the idea of a polygamous marriage doesn't mean we should enforce our opinions on others or the gov should enforce it's views on us.

I find it funny that ya'll yell your heads off about taxes on the rich and declare you want the gov out of our lives and our pocketbooks and then turn around and say the gov should regulate marriages. Can't ya'll see the contradiction??

And she votes!

BTW, how many husbands did any of David's or Solomon's wives have?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Aaron, why would it matter how many husbands the women had? Isn't what is good for the gander good for the goose?? Only a man would be arrogant enough to declare that his right to more wives was greater than a woman's right to more husbands. (though, I personally can't imagine dealing with more than one at a time, some women have heavier skillets than I can weild. )

Biwald, that isn't going to be just a hom* thing. Heter*'s are already doing the same thing for the same reason!

PreachinJesus? Where were those marriages condemned as not valid?? God warned against some of them (not all) becasue the women came from false religions, but you'll have to show me where He condemned either men from having more than one wife or women from having more than one husband. It was the culture of those times that made the first acceptable and the second unacceptable, NOT any command of God, even though in the beginning He only provided Adam with one helpmeet and only gave Adam to one helpmeet.


1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[Zaac]

Hey menagerie. Hope you're doing well. I don't believe that I've made your acquaintance yet.

In Genesis God established what Biblical marriage is. That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Gen. 2:24 He never changed that. Jesus even reiterates this in Matthew 19:5

Yes God ALLOWED them to take multiple wives just like He allowed for divorce.

Scripture even says “Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 1 Cor. 6:12

So they could have as many wives as they wanted, but that was different from the number of husbands/wives God had ordained to be proper for marriage.

But His decree as to what marriage is and how many husbands and wives are involved in Biblical marriage never changed.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Zaac, nice to meet you too! I've been busy getting my life and that of my children back together after the loss of my husband to a motorcycle accident earlier this summer. You will call me liberal on some things and then wonder how I can be so conservative on others.

On this, I don't disagree with you. I do believe that God intended from the first that there be one man to one woman and vice versa. However, should what *I* believe be forced on you?

Here we turn to the political ramifications of allowing my religious beliefs to be force on you. And politically speaking I don't think the government should be regulating marriage PERIOD. Marriage should be decided by the different religious and cultural groups residing in the US under the 1st amendment protections of speech, religion etc. The church should go back to doing what it is supposed to do: Preach the gospel.

We speak of being free from government interference, but then we want the government to interfere in someone else's lives. There is a contradiction.

 

[Benjamin]

I do believe that God intended from the first that there be one man to one woman and vice versa. However, should what *I* believe be forced on you?

As if morals do not exist and are not imposed in a civil society!

Sorry, but that is such a lame argument. Would you impose your moral values on another if it 35 year old trying to marry a 14 year old???

In one of my classes a woman used the same reasoning, she said "I believe abortion is taking of a life but I don't believe I should impose my beliefs on others." I asked, "If you won't stand up against what you consider murder on those grounds, then would it not be okay for a mother to chop up her 3 year old with an axe?"

That reasoning about forcing what *you* believe on others is a baseless excuse that denies standing up for ones morals (its all about priorities and where you draw the line, nothing more) for love of not offending the ideas of the world(ly)...