Legalizing polygamy in Canada.....

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[HoreTore]

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

Uhm.... Because the law is it currently is prohibits marriage between more than two people....?

[The Stranger]

but law doesnt forbid more than 2 people living together, screwing around (i mean loving each other) and having kids.

you say marriage is about love, i say its about property. im right, and since we both agreed that property is a government issue, nothing should change.

i have spoken.

[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?

[HoreTore]

but law doesnt forbid more than 2 people living together, screwing around (i mean loving each other) and having kids.

It doesn't forbid it, but it does discriminate against it, since being married gives benefits. Not just financial, but also because it won't allow having multiple partners all listed as "next of kin", which has a very real consequence in case one of them gets hospitalized.

All the arguments for gay marriage applies here. Sure, two men could live together before gay marriage, but they nissed out on the benefits an official relationship(marriage) gets.

[The Stranger]

too be honest i do not care if it gets legalised or not. though i do foresee alot of fraude potential. not that is a reason to not pass the law.

[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.

[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.

[Beirut]

Daddywaio!

Consenting adults have to be of sound mind and reasoning ability.

Under the assumption that a sound mind and reasoning ability means you can count to 7 without using your fingers, then I agree.

If we limited marriage and baby making to people who are actually of sound mind and reasoning ability, the world's population would plummet like a cow off a cliff.

Not that that's a bad thing...

[Skullheadhq]

but law doesnt forbid more than 2 people living together, screwing around (i mean loving each other) and having kids.

you say marriage is about love, i say its about property. im right, and since we both agreed that property is a government issue, nothing should change.

i have spoken.

How is it a government issue?

[gaelic cowboy]

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

In total agreement with you here the whole idea is so 19th century all tied up with property and sucession rites etc.

[Dîn-Heru]

First of all the issues of abuse and so on in a polygamous marriage are not a result of the relationship form, but of power-hungry individuals. As Papewaio said there are already laws in place to deal with these issues.

As long as we are talking about consenting adults they are free to engage in any contract they want (for the most part, and I'm assuming this is the case in Canada as well), marriage is a form of standardized contract and as such there should not be any significant limitations when it comes to extra content of this contract.

As for property rights I can't speak of Canadian law, but in Norwegian law each partner in the marriage retains the ownership and user rights of everything they have before the marriage is made and whatever they buy with their own money during. (there are some exceptions, like one party not being able to sell the family home without the agreement of the other party) There is also a law concerning two or more people owning something together.
My point is that property issues in a polygamous relationship should not be too difficult to find a solution to as the issues have probably already been addressed in other laws.

When it comes to end of the relationship the principal rule is equal sharing of the value of the possessions, but not if you have a pre-nup. To prevent a messy division of possessions if a polygamous marriage ends because one party leaves it one could make the pre-nup the standard and not 50-50 division.

Children, might be better to have more "parents" to nurture and support. And kids are more resilient to things that differ from the norm as long as it is explained to them. (ie not telling them it is weird or disgusting, if people are actually mature and reasonable enough to not do so is a different issue entirely)

Before this gets too drawn out, my belief is that seeing as marriage is a societal construct, there is no reason for it to maintain a specific form just because it has been so for a long time. The so-called issues are not insurmountable obstacles, but rather issues that are already resolved in other laws than marriage law and can be incorporated into it or be clarified in other laws.

[The Stranger]

How is it a government issue?

In total agreement with you here the whole idea is so 19th century all tied up with property and sucession rites etc.

he answered your question.

[lars573]

As for property rights I can't speak of Canadian law, but in Norwegian law each partner in the marriage retains the ownership and user rights of everything they have before the marriage is made and whatever they buy with their own money during. (there are some exceptions, like one party not being able to sell the family home without the agreement of the other party) There is also a law concerning two or more people owning something together.
My point is that property issues in a polygamous relationship should not be too difficult to find a solution to as the issues have probably already been addressed in other laws.

In common law when you enter into a marriage contract all assets of both parties become communal property of the marriage. And unless you outline what was yours before (in a pre nup usually) it gets divided as a marriage asset in a divorce.

[Dîn-Heru]

In common law when you enter into a marriage contract all assets of both parties become communal property of the marriage. And unless you outline what was yours before (in a pre nup usually) it gets divided as a marriage asset in a divorce.

I'm sorry, I probably was a bit unclear. It is technically the same here. While each of the parties retain the property rights and user rights it is counted as communal property. Meaning that unless you have a pre-nup or there are good reasons as to why the assets should be divided unevenly the value of the will be divided 50/50 (not the objects in themselves though only the value of the objects). The manner in which is done is that you find the net value of each party's assets and then you give 50% of that to the other party and vice versa. So as an example if one has assets to a net value of $100.000 and the other $50.000 the first one will give away $50.000 and get $25.000 back and the reverse for the latter (gets $50.000 and gives away $25.000)