Legalizing polygamy in Canada.....

[PanzerJaeger]

In the name of equality we're going to end up with men marrying their mothers, fathers marrying their daughters, guys marrying dogs, it will never end. And there will be people who say anyone who is against any of these things they are just hate-mongers.

Let there be mush.

Groan.

Are you really concerned about men marrying their dogs, or is that just exaggeration for effect?

[HoreTore]

The state should not interfere with peoples love life.

Whether I choose to spend my life with one, two, three or more people, or alone, is nobodys business but my own. Love should be an individuals choice, and never regulated by law. End of story.

[Jolt]

If people are willing to marry more than one person, who are we to prevent that? So long as people are not forced into marriage (Which is already a crime by itself), then I don't see a point in forbidding polygamy except to maintain some sort of Judeo-Christian standard of monogamy.

[Xiahou]

The state should not interfere with peoples love life.

Whether I choose to spend my life with one, two, three or more people, or alone, is nobodys business but my own. Love should be an individuals choice, and never regulated by law. End of story.

But does that mean you should get tax and welfare benefits for it?

[HoreTore]

But does that mean you should get tax and welfare benefits for it?

If other couples recieve them, yes of course. Why on earth shouldn't they?

[Rhyfelwyr]

If other couples recieve them, yes of course. Why on earth shouldn't they?

For a start, they are not really even a "couple".

[Beirut]

For a start, they are not really even a "couple".

They could call themselves a "several".

[HoreTore]

For a start, they are not really even a "couple".

Do I care about linguistics? Nope. Next argument, please. And make it a valid one this time.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But does that mean you should get tax and welfare benefits for it?

Good point. Why not remove the tax & welfare benefits for married couples?

[HoreTore]

Good point. Why not remove the tax & welfare benefits for married couples?

I support this.

[Skullheadhq]

Why not outlaw mormonism instead of legalizing polygamy?

[Beskar]

I support this.

As you all know, so do I.

[Brenus]

“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…

[HoreTore]

As I stated in my post, Brenus, I do not support the state interfering with peoples love lives.

That means that I not only support polygamy, but all forms of "people freely deciding to spend their lives together". Your final paragraph is what I support.

Marriage should be erradicated from our system of laws. It has no place there.

[Noncommunist]

“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…

How does a marriage with more than two members violate equality of gender? If everyone entered of their own free will, then where is the violation?

[ajaxfetish]

“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.

Technically, polygamy just means having multiple spouses. While the usual practice has been one man several women, the term itself is gender neutral. If you want to be more specific, polygyny is having multiple wives and polyandry is having multiple husbands.

Ajax

[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.

[The Stranger]

The state should not interfere with peoples love life.

Whether I choose to spend my life with one, two, three or more people, or alone, is nobodys business but my own. Love should be an individuals choice, and never regulated by law. End of story.

mariage is not about love its about property. and as locke says property is a natural right which should be garantueed by the government. thus marriage is a case of law.

[HoreTore]

mariage is not about love its about property. and as locke says property is a natural right which should be garantueed by the government. thus marriage is a case of law.

Get with the times.

People arrange their lives in multiple ways now, marriage is no longer dominant. People live together and raise children without being married. The laws should reflects this, thus marriage should be removed from the laws and replaced by new ones determining how people can share property.

Oh, and I'm a socialist, I have no respect for Locke

[The Stranger]

Get with the times.

People arrange their lives in multiple ways now, marriage is no longer dominant. People live together and raise children without being married. The laws should reflects this, thus marriage should be removed from the laws and replaced by new ones determining how people can share property.

Oh, and I'm a socialist, I have no respect for Locke

the laws have actually done this, its called a contract. and when both sides sign it they will legally bind themself to whatever is in it. marriage is one form of this contract. i dont see why it should be removed from the law since people do still marry and marriage is still dominant though not as dominant as it used to be and no longer at such an early stage in life and it rarely lasts as long :P

"Thou shall not mock Locke or I will unleash my fury upon thee!"

somewhere in the bible.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Get with the times.

People arrange their lives in multiple ways now, marriage is no longer dominant. People live together and raise children without being married. The laws should reflects this, thus marriage should be removed from the laws and replaced by new ones determining how people can share property.

Oh, and I'm a socialist, I have no respect for Locke

You are talking against yourself. You say that marriages should be removed from the law system because the state has no right to interfere into peoples love lives. However, you support the state interfering into how people can share their property?

[The Stranger]

You are talking against yourself. You say that marriages should be removed from the law system because the state has no right to interfere into peoples love lives. However, you support the state interfering into how people can share their property?

yes! go read locke!!

[HoreTore]

You are talking against yourself. You say that marriages should be removed from the law system because the state has no right to interfere into peoples love lives. However, you support the state interfering into how people can share their property?

Uhm..... Yes?

How does "interfere love" equal "interfere with property"...? I see no reason for the government to control who I freely choose to have sex with. I do, however, see a need for the law to regulate the status of ownership of things bought with other people, just like there is a need to regulate what owning stock in a company allows people to do.

@lars: indeed it does! Which is why there won't be any property issues if we remove the word "marriage" from the books.

[The Stranger]

if there is no issue why bother. its just a word brother nothing changes. because people actually make a fuss bout things like this the goverment is so damn ineffective XD

[lars573]

Get with the times.

People arrange their lives in multiple ways now, marriage is no longer dominant. People live together and raise children without being married. The laws should reflects this, thus marriage should be removed from the laws and replaced by new ones determining how people can share property.

Oh, and I'm a socialist, I have no respect for Locke

Having a legal system based on British Common law, there is a provision for couples living together and not being officially married. It's called Common law marriage. If you live together for a set period of time, of have children together. The law considers you de facto married.

“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…

Well without reading the actual anti-Moron polygamy law. I can say that in 2004 the marriage act was changed from talking of 1 man and 1 woman to 2 persons. But marriages are the legal jurisdiction of the provinces. However the federal parliament can order them changed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Are you really concerned about men marrying their dogs, or is that just exaggeration for effect?

Well, stranger things have happened notably in Japan. There people marry things like blow up dolls and cushions.

[Hosakawa Tito]

What kinda fool would want more than one wife?

[HopAlongBunny]

I wonder this will mean for spousal benefits.

[lars573]

What kinda fool would want more than one wife?

Mormons dudes who's womenz have been molded into doormat baby factories by years of indoctrination. Or Muslims who believe in the old ways

[Rahwana]

I support Polygamy, and thinking to get four wife if the circumstances allow it