Legalizing polygamy in Canada.....

[Beirut]

“Do I care about linguistics?”: Er, you do. The fact is we debate of polygamy. Polygamy is one man several women.
So it is against human Rights in term of equality of gender.
So the question is does Canada will legalise multiple marriage?
So de facto, will Canada destroy the very notion of marriage and re-emplace it by something new as free union with legal duties and right and will Canada vote new laws in order to protect the rights of each member of such union, including babies (who is the father) in case of dissolution…

We'll end up a country so intent on protecting every conceivable perceived "value" that we'll end up having no vaules at all.

What's that line from Frederick the Great? He who defends everything defends nothing.

[Strike For The South]

Are they Consenting Adults?

They are?

Next question plz

But no doubiling up on teh benifits

Cheeky polagmists

[Jaguara]

So, nobody has any issues regarding alleged exploitation of women within polygamist circles?

(The debate here seems entirely based on recognition...in which case as HoreTore points out, it just deals with the same issues of recognizing other marriages...but are there any other issues at play here?).

An extreme example are certain cults (this is not code for Mormons...I mean hardcore cults) which have formed a religion in which they teach (brainwash) their members a doctrine which includes subservience of the women along with polygamy. Women are not extended the same rights, and for a woman to have multiple partners would be considered abhorrent.

I am not familiar enough with the Mormon or Muslim versions of this to comment. I have heard allegations regarding the Mormons that they indoctrinate the girls young to convince them this is God's will and then marry them off as early as 14. I do not know if these allegations are founded or if they are merely anti-Mormon/Anti-Polygamist propoganda.

I am curious about:
1. People who might have more knowledge or insight into this.
2. How everyone might think this might/could/should effect the legalization of the practice

[Banquo's Ghost]

So, nobody has any issues regarding alleged exploitation of women within polygamist circles?

(The debate here seems entirely based on recognition...in which case as HoreTore points out, it just deals with the same issues of recognizing other marriages...but are there any other issues at play here?).

An extreme example are certain cults (this is not code for Mormons...I mean hardcore cults) which have formed a religion in which they teach (brainwash) their members a doctrine which includes subservience of the women along with polygamy. Women are not extended the same rights, and for a woman to have multiple partners would be considered abhorrent.

I am not familiar enough with the Mormon or Muslim versions of this to comment. I have heard allegations regarding the Mormons that they indoctrinate the girls young to convince them this is God's will and then marry them off as early as 14. I do not know if these allegations are founded or if they are merely anti-Mormon/Anti-Polygamist propoganda.

I am curious about:
1. People who might have more knowledge or insight into this.
2. How everyone might think this might/could/should effect the legalization of the practice

One suspects that this is a problem of women's rights and religious practice rather than polygamy per se. Women are just as abused in monogamous marriages and relationships if they are not accorded equal rights.

[Beirut]

So, nobody has any issues regarding alleged exploitation of women within polygamist circles?

(The debate here seems entirely based on recognition...in which case as HoreTore points out, it just deals with the same issues of recognizing other marriages...but are there any other issues at play here?).

I'm with BG on this. Women are often exploited in monogamous marriages, so using that criteria to outlaw polygamy would end up making monogamous marriage illegal as well. And it would be the women who would be P.O.d about that a lot more than men, methinks.

[Andres]

Personally, I think there should be an optional legal framework for all forms of cohabitation between consenting adults.

It has to be optional of course; either you live together with whoever and how many you want and make your own arrangements or no arrangements at all (which will make you wish you had made them once whatever form of cohabitation you're into comes to an end) or you do the same, but chose for the legal framework offered by the government.

I'd also write the word "marriage" out of the law, because people are always so sensitive when you talk about "marriage", but most don't give a if it's about "legal framework for cohabitants".

In my ideal world, you can still "marry" for the religion/atheist sect of your choice, but that should only be symbolic with no legal consequernces whatsoever. To get the legal framework, some sort of declaration for a government offical will do (for those fond of ceremonies, you can get a ceremony there if you pay for it).

[The Stranger]

ehm... men are exploited and abused too but that just never gets any attention. they numbers are like 40% male cases 60% female. atleast in western europe, perhaps not in the other parts of the world where men have remained real men!!

[Papewaio]

Consenting adults. Not an issue.

Arguing that polygamy = gender inequality or child abuse. Issue.

Enforce the laws that exist against sex trafficking, child abuse, marital abuse, grooming etc.
Don't try and make a law to attack issues that are second order if they are at all. Make a law for a primary reason.

The state is involved in who you *insert rhyming word here*. Because of the outcomes ie she gets knocked up, or either/several or you get an STD. The state is expected to step in if there is any short comings in your ability to look after yourself (welfare, health, child support). Its also there to protect those involved to make sure they are consenting adults.

Consenting adults have to be of sound mind and reasoning ability. Dogs are not of that ability, and no Lassie barking that Jim is lost in a well does not count.

Mind you all this does make three men and a baby more plausible.

[Scienter]

Personally, I think there should be an optional legal framework for all forms of cohabitation between consenting adults.

[snip]

In my ideal world, you can still "marry" for the religion/atheist sect of your choice, but that should only be symbolic with no legal consequernces whatsoever. To get the legal framework, some sort of declaration for a government offical will do (for those fond of ceremonies, you can get a ceremony there if you pay for it).

I tend to agree with you. I'm not personally wired for polygamy, but it's really none of my business if other people are. So long as everyone involved consents. There's a lot of room for abuse in this type of situation (I'm thinking about women from poor countries who marry men to move away to a better place).

Another thing that gives me pause is that groups of people could use a legal framework to get tax benefits, etc. Imagine a bunch of grad students living together and decide to get 'married' as a group to get tax benefits, etc. This is abuse of the law to me, and I don't know how the gov't would prevent such a thing from happening.

[Jaguara]

I tend to agree with you. I'm not personally wired for polygamy, but it's really none of my business if other people are. So long as everyone involved consents. There's a lot of room for abuse in this type of situation (I'm thinking about women from poor countries who marry men to move away to a better place).

Another thing that gives me pause is that groups of people could use a legal framework to get tax benefits, etc. Imagine a bunch of grad students living together and decide to get 'married' as a group to get tax benefits, etc. This is abuse of the law to me, and I don't know how the gov't would prevent such a thing from happening.

Well, here in Canada...except maybe in Quebec...it is actually often a negative benefit to be in a marriage situation. I am not sure how students could benefit from it at all, as they already get substantial benefits. They usually have negligable income & taxes anyway.

There is currently no income splitting in Canada (the Conservatives are promising this in 2015 - yeah right). Also on Federal taxes you only get one full-value dependant (though the others count for social benefits & social assistance).

Most government social benefits & assistance are already based on household income (not even just spouses), so unless they commit outright fraud and do not disclose the other spouses' incomes, the low income wives would lose their benefits by joining such a union. However, anyone willing to do that is likely doing it already, and just not gotten caught.

Where there could be exploitation is in things like where one person works and gets family benefits - such as dental care. These policies would likely change in the face of polygamy legislation, or one working person could claim dental benefits for themselves, all the spouses, and all the children. If 2 or 3 did, then the plans can double-up to the point of the ridiculous.

Now, as opposed to students, if a group of single mothers got together with a man...with an intent to commit fraud, it is still not clear that they would benefit. They would lose any social assistance if any members of the family were working, if the working members incomes were high enough, there could be tax savings from additional dependants, but would it be enough to offset the low-income benefits that would have come to the non-working ones? I strongly doubt it.

I know a woman with 3 kids who made close to $1000 a month in social assistance plus another $1000 a month in child-tax benefits (total of provincial and federal), those amounts both tax free. The tax benefits to a high-income earner would not come close to that.

So, actually, I think the fears of fraud - in Canada - are somewhat limited.

In the US, where the tax advantages are potentially high, and social benefits are lower...it would likely be a different matter.

[Andres]

I tend to agree with you. I'm not personally wired for polygamy, but it's really none of my business if other people are. So long as everyone involved consents. There's a lot of room for abuse in this type of situation (I'm thinking about women from poor countries who marry men to move away to a better place).

Another thing that gives me pause is that groups of people could use a legal framework to get tax benefits, etc. Imagine a bunch of grad students living together and decide to get 'married' as a group to get tax benefits, etc. This is abuse of the law to me, and I don't know how the gov't would prevent such a thing from happening.

Here in Belgium, in tax law most differences between people who are married or just living together have been worked away. There's still some work to do (and certainly so in the social benefits department), but it's not impossible for the legislator to get rid of all differential treatments of people just living together and people who are married. I don't think one group should have any advantage over the other regarding tax law and social benefits. I think the circumstance of having a household together or not should be decisive. Besides, plenty of people are married and don't live together, so why should they be treated as if they are living together. Really, your marital status should be completely irrelevant when it comes to taxes and social benefits.

The legal framework should only have consequences on the private (civil? or is that the same over there; here it's "burgerrechtelijk") law level; in other words: only consequences for those in the legal framework. Marriage/living together is a strictly private affair, imo. Providing a legal framework that people can chose for seems like a no-brainer to me; living together has consequences and the state has a responsibility to at least provide some sort of framework (optional of course) to deal with those consequences (especially with the situation once the living together has ended). But that should be it.

Anyway, whatever the legal framework, getting a prenuptial is always a good idea.

[Beskar]

In my ideal world, you can still "marry" for the religion/atheist sect of your choice, but that should only be symbolic with no legal consequernces whatsoever. To get the legal framework, some sort of declaration for a government offical will do (for those fond of ceremonies, you can get a ceremony there if you pay for it).

We completely agree and that is what I have been advocating!

[Tuuvi]

So, nobody has any issues regarding alleged exploitation of women within polygamist circles?

(The debate here seems entirely based on recognition...in which case as HoreTore points out, it just deals with the same issues of recognizing other marriages...but are there any other issues at play here?).

An extreme example are certain cults (this is not code for Mormons...I mean hardcore cults) which have formed a religion in which they teach (brainwash) their members a doctrine which includes subservience of the women along with polygamy. Women are not extended the same rights, and for a woman to have multiple partners would be considered abhorrent.

I am not familiar enough with the Mormon or Muslim versions of this to comment. I have heard allegations regarding the Mormons that they indoctrinate the girls young to convince them this is God's will and then marry them off as early as 14. I do not know if these allegations are founded or if they are merely anti-Mormon/Anti-Polygamist propoganda.

I am curious about:
1. People who might have more knowledge or insight into this.
2. How everyone might think this might/could/should effect the legalization of the practice

As far as the mainstream Mormon church goes, it hasn't practiced polygamy in about a hundred years. Some of the polygamous sects which broke away from the main church on the other hand, do exploit young women and indoctrinate them into marrying extremely young. The leader of the FLDS polygamous church, Warren Jeffs, was arrested and went on trial for rape as an accomplice for arranging and performing marriages of underage girls.