Unprecedented civil union unites Brazilian trio

[Brian]

I am not sure how I feel about this. It could undermine same-sex marriage rights around the world. It might be too much for many people and feed into the "slippery slope" arguments some have made against same-sex marriage. On the other hand, is it good for the human rights of bisexuals?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/world/americas/brazil-polyfaithful-union/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

"Brazilian public notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues set off a firestorm by granting Brazil's first civil union to a trio..." (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/world/americas/brazil-polyfaithful-union/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

- Drew :paw:

[DuckiesDarling]

"By registering them, I only confirmed that they recognize themselves as a family," she said. "I don't confer rights to them. That is up to a judge to decide."

This is the part that stands out to me, it seems that something was granted as a name for legal purposes but no rights, no privileges, no responsibilities either. It will be interesting to see what a judge does with it and how it ripples around the world.

[tenni]

"The controversial civil union "is proof that there is a plurality of familiar relations, though not all deserve judicial or legal standing," Rolf Madaleno, director of the Brazilian Institute for Family Law, said in a statement. "The action carried out does not provide protections and does not confer rights."

Thanks for posting this, drew.

It may not come as too much of a surprise what I am about to print. I think that bisexuality is so very much more than same sex marriage. Same sex marriage should be one of the options for bisexuals. Unlike monosexuals we have so much more to work towards obtaining even in our own sexuality members.

This is a starting point. GOOD FOR BRAZIL!
The arguments should begin to push that yes closed loop or stable unions beyond couples do deserve legal and judicial standing for bisexuals.

This "stable union" term for trios is admirable. As the one person stated that when same sex marriage was introduced in Brazil(and Canada etc.) there was objection.

I see it that if you are really interested in advocating for bisexuality, poly relationships for bisexuals is an option that needs more support from bisexuals, even if it is not a particular bisexual's personal choice.

I know that some argue that poly exists beyond bisexual but it has been a rational option for bisexuals in my mind for awhile. I'm not sure that it is for me but "closed loop" trios are an option that bisexuals should be entitled to consider just as they may consider duos cross gender or same sex gender unions.

[sodacan3]

This is a starting point. GOOD FOR BRAZIL!

Yes. trio and moresomes have been around in the USA for years, but they have been under the radar. In the 1970's Larry and Joan Constantine researched and wrote a book, calling such arrangements "Multilateral marriages". They found that on the whole these marriages were more satisfying and lasted longer than the conventional marriage.
I can't believe that people would get so upset about this. What is the big deal if it is two people or four people. It should be everyone's choice. Why should it be a threat? If you don't want it, just don't choose it! Now it is hard enough to find one other person who loves you and whom you love, but if you can find three other people, well that would be great!

[falcondfw]

This is a starting point. GOOD FOR BRAZIL!

Yes. trio and moresomes have been around in the USA for years, but they have been under the radar. In the 1970's Larry and Joan Constantine researched and wrote a book, calling such arrangements "Multilateral marriages". They found that on the whole these marriages were more satisfying and lasted longer than the conventional marriage.
I can't believe that people would get so upset about this. What is the big deal if it is two people or four people. It should be everyone's choice. Why should it be a threat? If you don't want it, just don't choose it! Now it is hard enough to find one other person who loves you and whom you love, but if you can find three other people, well that would be great!

I can understand why there are objections. I am not saying the objections are valid or invalid.
But the two most vehement objections are based on:

1. Religion - It goes against the teachings of most churches going back thousands of years. Grant these kinds of unions and you turn thousands of years of teachings and indoctrinations upside down. Basically, you upset the apple cart.

2. Money - Granting same sex unions confers those couples the same status as hetero married couples, which means they can apply for survivor benefits, in case of death; add benefits in case of dismemberment; or regular insurance. And since LGBT couples and poly groups are ALL FAR more susceptible to STD's, HIV, AIDS, and any other disease you can think of, giving those groups the right to get spouse insurance will raise everyone's costs, because of the actuarial tables!

Those are the theories, anyway. At least, those are the two I hear most often. lol

[Long Duck Dong]

I have always been a strong believer in the right of people ( individuals ) to live according to their beliefs ( within reason ) so poly marriage / civil union is something I would like to see, opened up as a option for those people that genuinely love their other partners.... and not a *tool / right ) pushed as a aspect of gender / sexuality rights.... as that is near guaranteed to create more issues......

the right of choices within relationships should transcend personal beliefs / religion and other issues where people want to control the lives of others, or tell others what is a * right * of choice in regards to marriage / civil union...... hence why I support the rights of marriage / civil union for all, and not the same sex marriage for LGBT aspect.... as equal rights to marriage for all, would include same sex marriage for LGBT and remove more of the boundaries that continue to seperate the sexual spectrum..

as for a impact on the fight for same sex marriage, there will always be people that want to dictate terms for the lives of others, while talking about equal rights, anti discrimination, equal treatment etc etc....so I am not convinced that its going to make a hell of a lot of difference as there is always people that are going to have issues with other people having the same rights as them....... but I bear a open mind on that cos nay sayers, activists and agenda pushers, never fail to amuse me with their narrow minded, hypocritical view points and stances.......

for the lucky couple..... sorry, lucky triad in brazil, many blessings on your union and may your love never fade but grow with every passing day

[Gearbox]

Good for them, and the rest of us too IMO.:three:

I'm not a great supporter of marridge itself, but if it has to exsist and effect the rights of people then it should be of service to the people and NOT the other way around.

[DiamondDog]

Bom para Brasil. However the Netherlands did a group civil union first. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301

[welickit]

The institution of family cannot be defended with the approval of actions that seek to distort its definition.
We liked this sentence in the article. First thing that came to mind is people who use the term "normal". Define "normal". This won't have a lasting effect on anything or anyone. The general public will shrug it off as a publicity stunt. Only a few will appreciate it and see it as a step forward. Then it will be back in the closet.