@Fardragon It's not my opinion, it's the definition of marriage. It's a contract between two people. If you have multiple wives, you have multiple such contracts but the wives are not obligated to each other.
This is starting to sound like the America's 1800.
Quite. The definition of marriage varies widely with both time and geography. That's why the only valid definition is what the people involved decide.
Oh I wasn't really talking about the definition of marriage, I will leave that to you. Shandyr's polls about "allowing" which can be translated to "Forced to marry this way" etc reminded me about past America where you, for instance were not allowed to marry a black man if you were a white woman and vice versa. Homosexuallity was prohibited as well. It is all based on a concept, where the law claims marriage as their property, as they can tell you how you can and can not marry another person, as well as other restrictions regarding marriage. In this poll the question, whether we should allow or forbid that married couples would live a childless life, was presented.
What I am saying is that marriage back in the day was so restricted compared today. Why should we apply restrictions regarding marriage again? It should be you and yours bussiness, not the government ( or any other factors for that matter)
Polygamy is legal in quite a few countries, including India. I believe the Quaran teaches that four is the optimal number of wives. In the USA Mormons practice polygamy even though it's not technically legal. But we have already established that most of us believe the beliefs of the individuals concerned supersede meddling by the State.
Mormons (members of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints) stopped practicing polygamy in 1890 in response to the enforcement of the Morril Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 (previously unenforced) by the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 and now denounce it.
"Mormons" who practice polygamy, mostly members of the rogue funadmentalist church formerly led by the infamous child molestor Warren Jeffs, are generally under FBI investigation and are considered by many to by a criminal organization.
Just wanted to clear some things up because it is best not to confuse the two, one a respected international church and the other a cult led by criminals, even though the term "mormon" is commonly used to refer to either organization.
@Fardragon It's not my opinion, it's the definition of marriage. It's a contract between two people. If you have multiple wives, you have multiple such contracts but the wives are not obligated to each other.
It's A definition of marriage, but legal codes vary widely around the world. You could argue that, as is in the case in several countries where polygamy is practiced, the contract only involves ONE person, since women have no legal rights. In other parts of the world there is no written law about marriage, and any disputes are handled by tribal elders. If a marriage is both homosexual and polygamous, as in the Brazil case, it cannot be between only two of the people involved. Each person has an obligation to each other person in the relationship.
I have already expressed my opinion that I don't believe the state, or anyone else, has any right to dictate the relationships of consenting adults, and as such I personally don't give a flying fig about what the law says in any country. Marriage is whatever the people involved say it is: full stop.
The legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)
Simply not true. In Brazil, for example, a contract involving three female partners has been declared legal.
Perhaps, in order to get familiar with the topic of Brazilian marriage, we should take a look at some the actual legal documents (for a consulate marriage) and read about the Family Law on the Instituto Brasileiro de Direito de Família site?
Specifically, let's take this:
União homoafetiva O Supremo Tribunal Federal, em 05/05/2011, ao julgar a ADI nº 4.277 e a ADPF nº 132, reconheceu a união homoafetiva como entidade familiar. Ao interpretar o artigo 1.723 do Código Civil, conforme a Constituição Federal garantiu aos parceiros homossexuais os mesmos direitos e deveres da união estável, entendida como sinônimo de família. A histórica decisão, ao atribuir efeitos pessoais e familiares às relações entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, referendou a jurisprudência que, há uma década, vinha preenchendo o vazio da legislação infraconstitucional.
Como a decisão da Corte Suprema dispõe de efeito vinculante e eficácia contra todos, a inclusão das uniões homoafetivas no âmbito do Direito das Famílias não necessita de tratamento destacado. E, aoinvés de se falar em “homeme mulher”, a referência é feita a “duas pessoas”. Além disso, o Conselho Nacional de Justiça-CNJ editou Resolução nº 175/2013, dispondo sobre a habilitação, celebração de casamento civil, ou de conversão de união estável em casamento, entre pessoas de mesmo sexo, reiterando a necessidade de disciplina normativa.
I'd like to draw attention to "duas pessoas." Now, far from being a native speaker, I think this means "two people."
After further digging into the article you linked, it turns out it is only due to a loophole in the Brazilian law that polygamy is recognised, it's not enshrined in their law as a legal right to polygamous marriage. They may well face other issues where laws might state 'two people.' Speaking of the Quran...
it cannot be between only two of the people involved
Yes, it can. Even looking over marriage certificates for Muslim marriages in Pakistan (where consent of the first wife must be obtained for a man to marry another), there is a 'Bride' and 'Groom'. Each wife does not have a contract with the next in that instance. In Brazil, there is a 'Spouse 1' and 'Spouse 2' column and the contract is between those two people.
I think @Fardragon rushed his posts a bit. It is better to take your time and compare different sources, especially if you have no knowledge about the subject from before.
Wow, where are you coming up with these bogus definitions of what marriage should or should not be? It's completely irrelevant whether a couple wants to have children or not, there are lots of reasons why they would want to be married aside from that.
Perhaps a better question would be why should any demographic of consenting adult not be allowed to get married?
Think about it this way, if we voted on whether or not the OP should be allowed to get married and the vote came back as a "no," should that mean that s/he really should be prohibited from doing so? Would that be fair or even make sense?
I don't think it should be up to anyone except for the actual couple whether or not they get married (provided of course that they are consenting adults).
Using the argument "Gay couples cannot have biological children" as a reason for not allowing same sex marriage is (to me) obviously nonsensical as many heterosexual couples are unable to have children, so the adjective "gay" is redundant, and to say that couples who cannot have biological children should not be allowed to marry is farcical.
Another thought for the proponents of "Gay couples cannot have biological children so shouldn't be allowed to marry" school of thought: It is my understanding that some couples actually wait until they're married before they have sex. If a heterosexual couple do this and only find out after they're married that they're infertile, must they then get divorced?
Comments
Marriage can only be between two people = your opinion. Fine.
Other opinions exist = fact. My existence is proof of that, unless you would like to try to argue that I don't exist?
What I am saying is that marriage back in the day was so restricted compared today. Why should we apply restrictions regarding marriage again? It should be you and yours bussiness, not the government ( or any other factors for that matter)
Mormons (members of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints) stopped practicing polygamy in 1890 in response to the enforcement of the Morril Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 (previously unenforced) by the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 and now denounce it.
"Mormons" who practice polygamy, mostly members of the rogue funadmentalist church formerly led by the infamous child molestor Warren Jeffs, are generally under FBI investigation and are considered by many to by a criminal organization.
Just wanted to clear some things up because it is best not to confuse the two, one a respected international church and the other a cult led by criminals, even though the term "mormon" is commonly used to refer to either organization.
I have already expressed my opinion that I don't believe the state, or anyone else, has any right to dictate the relationships of consenting adults, and as such I personally don't give a flying fig about what the law says in any country. Marriage is whatever the people involved say it is: full stop.
Specifically, let's take this: I'd like to draw attention to "duas pessoas." Now, far from being a native speaker, I think this means "two people."
After further digging into the article you linked, it turns out it is only due to a loophole in the Brazilian law that polygamy is recognised, it's not enshrined in their law as a legal right to polygamous marriage. They may well face other issues where laws might state 'two people.' Speaking of the Quran... Optimal...? Since when did 'limit' under Sharia Law (Quran Chapter An-Nisa(4), Verse Nº. (3)) mean optimal? Yes, it can. Even looking over marriage certificates for Muslim marriages in Pakistan (where consent of the first wife must be obtained for a man to marry another), there is a 'Bride' and 'Groom'. Each wife does not have a contract with the next in that instance. In Brazil, there is a 'Spouse 1' and 'Spouse 2' column and the contract is between those two people.
Think about it this way, if we voted on whether or not the OP should be allowed to get married and the vote came back as a "no," should that mean that s/he really should be prohibited from doing so? Would that be fair or even make sense?
I don't think it should be up to anyone except for the actual couple whether or not they get married (provided of course that they are consenting adults).
It is my understanding that some couples actually wait until they're married before they have sex. If a heterosexual couple do this and only find out after they're married that they're infertile, must they then get divorced?