Polygamists argue gay marriage defence

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

If someone can love whatever gender they want, why can't we love more than one person? Seems silly this is a law.

I guess that it depends on the situation right.

In the case of this trial they were basically abusing and dominating young brain washed girls.

that's the problem with that sect, and iirc they were also trying to ship young girls over the border to marry some creep in the states.

this isn't about a loving relationship, its about old crooked freaks dominating young vulnerable girls.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess that it depends on the situation right.

In the case of this trial they were basically abusing and dominating young brain washed girls.

that's the problem with that sect, and iirc they were also trying to ship young girls over the border to marry some creep in the states.

this isn't about a loving relationship, its about old crooked freaks dominating young vulnerable girls.

But God though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

But God though.

Nothing to do with god at all, this is all about fat ugly dudes exercising power over their community and over these woman.

When someone basically ducks their head in a hat and comes out with "Though fat ugly guys shall marry as many young chicks as you can who will be subservient to you" Its pretty clear that its a con.

[CroFlames]

I was trying to be subtle.

Yes, these abusers use God as their excuse.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

If someone can love whatever gender they want, why can't we love more than one person? Seems silly this is a law.

Polygamy has tended towards blatant exploitation of women, so.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Polygamy has tended towards blatant exploitation of women, so.

Pretty much this. Even though this is something that's theoretically relevant to my life and lives of people I know, relatively few polyamorists are super interested in the possibility of polygamy. Partially because many of them are not that into traditions in relationships anyway.

Personally, I think the laws around marriages and families are kind of outdated, and never really reflected the realities of life that well. I feel marriage should be more of a religious concept anyway, rather than a legal one.

Mostly what people need is the possibility to declare someone a close family member for situations like adoption, inheritance and making decisions when someone is unconscious at a hospital, criminal courts etc. While that could be abused too, I think it would be healthier to have that possibility without the assumption of sexual relations that comes with the concept of marriage. Still, it's a tricky business, and I'm not sure the benefits are worth the risks.

There's also the significant difference to gay marriage that if you allow multiple people to marry, you probably have to re-write parts of marriage laws regarding things like who gets what in a divorce. That would really affect every marriage, unlike gay marriage which only affects gay people.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

If someone can love whatever gender they want, why can't we love more than one person? Seems silly this is a law.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

There is good reason for it if you look throughout history, a significant population of unattached/unmarried men is bad for long term stability. That is one reason why many societies banned polygamy throughout history.

Interesting question actually, and I suppose nothing is stopping person from loving more than one person. However they cannot be legally married to more than one person. I have not looked at the legal arguments behind it but I can see possible implications in terms of tax law, family benefits, retirement benefits etc. if multiple spouses were allowed.

[Lanny_McDonald]

The right of marriage was extended to same-sex "couples." All people, regardless of sexual orientation, can only be married to one other person at one time. That is the law. If you want to be married to woman, but decide to switch teams and marry a man, you must still get a divorce prior to marrying the other dude. The law is one-to-one relationship, not a one-to-many.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by New Era

The right of marriage was extended to same-sex "couples." All people, regardless of sexual orientation, can only be married to one other person at one time. That is the law. If you want to be married to woman, but decide to switch teams and marry a man, you must still get a divorce prior to marrying the other dude. The law is one-to-one relationship, not a one-to-many.

Regardless of any other other point, that's a very unconvincing one.

It use to be law that only two opposite-gendered people could get married. That was changed. So could this. If the only argument is that it is against the law, (which of course no one will disagree), then there's not much substance to the law. The issue is whether or not it should be against the law.

The biggest pushback would be issues with insurance, pension, taxes, child-rights, etc. that would make it extremely messy, impractical and maybe impossible. But in a perfect world I'm not sure there's a case to be made against what multiple consenting adults do with their life.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It is the "consenting" part, ie. decision made freely, free from duress where this is problematic in my view.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It is the "consenting" part, ie. decision made freely, free from duress where this is problematic in my view.

Well yes, there's a difference between what this dufus was doing, trading young brainwashed women and consenting adults practicing polygamy. I was not in anyway endorsing this asshat and was speaking more general between actual consenting adults. However, both are illegal.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Regardless of any other other point, that's a very unconvincing one.

Unconvincing? A marriage is considered a contract, hence the requirement for a legal dissolution of the contract to separate the two parties and their property. Seems pretty convincing to me.

It use to be law that only two opposite-gendered people could get married. That was changed. So could this. If the only argument is that it is against the law, (which of course no one will disagree), then there's not much substance to the law. The issue is whether or not it should be against the law.

The Marriage Act seems to have some substance to it. 14 pages to be exact.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/M05.pdf

So does the Adult Interdependent Relations Act, where it clearly defines a relationship between two people. The Marriage Act of 2005 defines marriage as the union of two people to the exclusion of all others. The Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act states the prohibitions, and they are based on bloodlines to prevent some of the negative consequences of inbreeding - like becoming an Oiler fan. I think that polygamy has been outlawed because of the negative outcomes seen in small isolated communities where their behavior makes the gene pool ankle deep. You don't need to go any further than West Virginia, Colorado City (AZ), or Bountiful (BC) to see why polygamy is illegal.

The biggest pushback would be issues with insurance, pension, taxes, child-rights, etc. that would make it extremely messy, impractical and maybe impossible. But in a perfect world I'm not sure there's a case to be made against what multiple consenting adults do with their life.

And that is why there is a one-to-one condition in recognition of marriage.

Personally I don't care. But I can see why the government would want to nip this stuff in the bud, if you know what I mean.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Polygamy has tended towards blatant exploitation of women, so.

A lot of women in the adult industry are also exploited, should we ban porn or ban the exploitation of women?

Don't see why there needs to be a blanket law because some guys mistreat women and girls in those sects.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

A lot of women in the adult industry are also exploited, should we ban porn or ban the exploitation of women?

Don't see why there needs to be a blanket law because some guys mistreat women and girls in those sects.

Technically exploitation of any worker is illegal. You wouldn't want to ban marriage, just polygamous marriage. You don't have to ban pornography, just enforce existing laws against unfair treatment.

I'm going to pull a, Won't somebody think of the children, here. The guy had a hundred and forty some kids. Unless you think fathers are useless that's a bit f'ed up.

[calgaryblood]

This case definitely should be illegal and that guy is a huge creep. But if a man or woman agree to marry more than one willing and consenting adult then I don't see the issue there. A little weird to me but still, legally it should be allowed.

[Nage Waza]

Why can't the government simply stay out of marriage? No license, nothing like that. Some other countries follow this method. If you are religious, you can go get 'married' at your church. Not religious, get married however way you want, ceremonial that is.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Why can't the government simply stay out of marriage? No license, nothing like that. Some other countries follow this method. If you are religious, you can go get 'married' at your church. Not religious, get married however way you want, ceremonial that is.

You mean like "simply" erase all the social, legal and financial benefits we've associated with marriage? Re-write tax laws, immigration laws, divorce laws, estate laws? Actually that would be simple.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You mean like "simply" erase all the social, legal and financial benefits we've associated with marriage? Re-write tax laws, immigration laws, divorce laws, estate laws? Actually that would be simple.

Actually, yes.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Actually, yes.

Please elaborate

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

This case definitely should be illegal and that guy is a huge creep. But if a man or woman agree to marry more than one willing and consenting adult then I don't see the issue there. A little weird to me but still, legally it should be allowed.

No, Polygamy is illegal for many reasons, history says the consenting adults you speak of turn into the exploitation of woman,young girls and sexual abuse, then there's the legal issues such as a divorce, how would a judge rule if the man had 5 wife's? give her 10% and kiss on the cheek?

I can't imagine it being a good thing for children’s mental health either.

Polygamy works in parts the Muslim world, and that's because they have zero respect for woman and their rights as human beings