Polygamy recognized in Canada

[calculoso]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics...08364-sun.html

The former Liberal government long maintained that polygamy is criminal in Canada but documents obtained by Sun Media under Access to Information show that polygamous marriages have been recognized "for limited purposes" to enforce the financial obligations of husbands.

Flabergasting...

[Hakan]

Essentially, I don't really understand why so many people have a problem with polygamy. Now I do understand that for the usual attention grabbing stories of 15 year old girls being married off in in some quasi-cult is wrong but essentially what is wrong if consenting adults want to be married to multiple people?

The only 'wrong' I see is the potential tax repercussions.

[Burninator]

From Article

Religious organizations say same-sex marriage opened the door to decriminalizing polygamy

I fail to see the connection between the two.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Burninator

From Article
I fail to see the connection between the two.

Traditional definition of marriage is between one man and one woman not otherwise related to eachother.

If you change the rules so it is now one person to another, why cant you then change it to one person to two others? If the government has no right to tell a man he may not marry another man, why does the government have the right to tell a man he may not marry two other women (or men)?

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Burninator

From Article

I fail to see the connection between the two.

There is absolutely no connection.

Same sex marriage was legalized under the guarantee or equality and non-discrimination. Polygamy, if it were to be legalized, would base its claim on freedom of religion.

Basically, it has more of a connection to the laws that protect the very religious organizations criticizing same-sex marriage than same-sex marriage itself.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Traditional definition of marriage is between one man and one woman not otherwise related to eachother.

If you change the rules so it is now one person to another, why cant you then change it to one person to two others? If the government has no right to tell a man he may not marry another man, why does the government have the right to tell a man he may not marry two other women (or men)?

Ah that makes sense, I thought they were implying it had something to do with religion. Still seems like a stretch to me.

[Agamemnon]

I figure if 2, 3, 4 people want to get married, and I'm not being forced to marry them, what do I care? Consenting adults are consenting adults, doesn't matter if they're a couple or a few.

That said I think some of these groups treat their children pretty harshly, basically forcing them into a certain lifestyle. That I don't agree with. Also hopefully it wouldn't become some sort of loophole where you and your buddies get married to save $500 a year in taxes.

I do see the connection between gay marriage and polygamy, and thought that soon after gay marriages were legalized polygymous would follow. I think the link is the fact that its non-traditional consenting adults trying to gain a union akin to the heterosexual version... but not. I don't see how you can discriminate against the # of people who want to get married, but you can't against which sex they are...

Again, thats purely excluding oppressive, isolated instances where women are being forced into marriage. If children's rights are being violated I think thats a separate issue.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Essentially, I don't really understand why so many people have a problem with polygamy. Now I do understand that for the usual attention grabbing stories of 15 year old girls being married off in in some quasi-cult is wrong but essentially what is wrong if consenting adults want to be married to multiple people?

The only 'wrong' I see is the potential tax repercussions.

You know, thats what everyone said about gay marriage. Not that I disagree or anything, but I kinda hate the arguement, "what is wrong...."

[octothorp]

Not really that flabbergasting... if a man has been living with multiple women in a common-law arrangement for a prolonged period of time, then it makes sense that the man has financial obligations to all (which would really suck if you got divorced by a whole bunch of them at once). Acknowledging these relationships in retrospect for the purposes of child-support payments and such is a little different that legalizing polygamous marriages.

I mean, just imagine the opposite: a man lives with two women for twenty years, then kicks one out. She wants some measure of financial support from him that a wife would normally be owed, but can't collect because there's another woman involved. Doesn't this guy have the same obligation to her that any man would have to a commonlaw wife?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

You know, thats what everyone said about gay marriage. Not that I disagree or anything, but I kinda hate the arguement, "what is wrong...."

Sure you kinda hate the argument, but it's been a year now since this gay marriage thing passed. So, what is wrong?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Sure you kinda hate the argument, but it's been a year now since this gay marriage thing passed. So, what is wrong?

You haven't noticed society's complete moral collapse since then? The "assault" on the traditional family being waged by homosexuals? God's wrath being manifested upon us in the form of famine and disease?!?!?

Don't worry--it's coming. Or so Fred Phelps tells me.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You haven't noticed society's complete moral collapse since then? The "assault" on the traditional family being waged by homosexuals? God's wrath being manifested upon us in the form of famine and disease?!?!?

Don't worry--it's coming. Or so Fred Phelps tells me.

That's the funny thing -- it wasn't just fringe loons like Phelps and his crowd. There were some mainstream folks warning about the downfall of the "traditional family" but here we are a year later and there hasn't been a single story about someone turnin' homuseckshull on account of them newfangled rules.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's the funny thing -- it wasn't just fringe loons like Phelps and his crowd. There were some mainstream folks warning about the downfall of the "traditional family" but here we are a year later and there hasn't been a single story about someone turnin' homuseckshull on account of them newfangled rules.

Yeah--and I hear that exact argument all the time from my father in law, who's a member of a bunch of "defense of marriage" email groups. Why a retired person in his 60s cares so deeply about what gay people do is sort of beyond me.

But the argument is strange at its core--in essence, what it presumes is that secretly all straight people desire to be gay--and only the rules of society prevent them. If gay marriage were legal, straight people everywhere would jump up and say "this traditional marriage thing is boring. I want me a GAY marriage!" Weird idea.

I pointed that out to "dad"--he didn't much like that line of reasoning.

His rebuttal was something like "harrumph!"

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

but here we are a year later and there hasn't been a single story about someone turnin' homuseckshull on account of them newfangled rules.

Not that I necessarily disagree with same sex marriage, but I think the social problems that were forecast would take more than a year to manifest themselves.

That statement would be fair to make 20 years from now, but not 1 year after the fact.

Personally I would rather see the gov't leaving common law marriage alone, and forcing people who have made a conscious decision to not get married into marriage. Gay or straight, let couples decide when they should get married. If one person needs the protection of marriage, then let them decide to get married.

But that's a whole other thread I think.

[White Doors]

Yes, I agree Ken. Alot of people who disagreed with same sex marriage disagreed with it because they wanted to keep 'marriage' as special and something to aspire to. (this ensures the continuation of the species)
Now, you can marry your room-mate in university to get better tax incentives. I think we can all see how that can take some 'meaning' out of it.

Polygamy? I don't know - I mean it sounds good in 'porn-think', but reality may be a little bit different.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Yes, I agree Ken. Alot of people who disagreed with same sex marriage disagreed with it because they wanted to keep 'marriage' as special and something to aspire to. (this ensures the continuation of the species)

Marriage does not 'ensure the continuation of the species'. Sex does. Believe it or not, I've a feeling that sex occurs quite often outside of the marriage bed... and there's nothing 'wrong' with that, as far as I'm concerned. Marriage is about cementing cohesive, contemporary family units. If you don't want to live in one of those units, there should be alternative lifestyles available.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's the funny thing -- it wasn't just fringe loons like Phelps and his crowd. There were some mainstream folks warning about the downfall of the "traditional family" but here we are a year later and there hasn't been a single story about someone turnin' homuseckshull on account of them newfangled rules.

The downfall of traditional family arguement has always made me laugh. The traditional family has been fading for many many years now.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Marriage does not 'ensure the continuation of the species'. Sex does. Believe it or not, I've a feeling that sex occurs quite often outside of the marriage bed... and there's nothing 'wrong' with that, as far as I'm concerned. Marriage is about cementing cohesive, contemporary family units. If you don't want to live in one of those units, there should be alternative lifestyles available.

The ideal situation for a child is for a mother and a father in a committed relationship I'd say. No, marriage doesn't guarantee that, but at at least makes them think it over when they say the vows.
I'm living in sin myself, so I'm not playing the part of a preacher here.

[Tron_fdc]

So what would happen if you got divorced all at once? Split everything 1/3? Would it be worth the nightly 3-somes???

I THINK SO!!!

I fail to see how someone could live with 2 or more wives though..... I live with one and it's more than enough to cause grey hair and premature balding.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

The ideal situation for a child is for a mother and a father in a committed relationship I'd say.

I think is a pretty contentious point. Many homosexual couple who have children would probably argue that they're damn fine parents. The fact that most of us were raised in heterosexual households (obviously) probably heavily predisposes us to believing that a married man and woman are the best way to go. Though, if you haven't experienced growing up in a homosexual household, you probably can't comment on its quality.

My best friend when I was younger had lesbian parents. They were both very successful professionals, and now he's a successful and well-rounded artist. I don't see how he was tainted or ruined by lacking a heterosexual heritage/household.

No, marriage doesn't guarantee that, but at at least makes them think it over when they say the vows.
I'm living in sin myself, so I'm not playing the part of a preacher here.

Well... you said that marriage has something to do with ensuring the future of the human race. I don't see how marriage has anything to do with it. There was probably a time when the modern institution of marriage was centuries away, and people seemed to get by fine without saying religiously-oriented vows (ie they were able to procreate with zeal).