Polygamy recognized in Canada

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by White Doors

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.

You could always do that before, you just had to find a chick who was willing to do it.

I really don't care eitehr way, but that arguement is just stupid, if someone wants to get married just so they can get a tax break then they are going to do it no matter if they have to marry a man or a woman.

Besides, it's not as though once you get married your income taxes all of a sudden drop by 10%. As far as I know the only real tax benefit you get is that you can claim your spouse as a dependant, so it only works for one of you, and if you both have jobs, it doesn't really work for either.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

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.

I don't think its a matter of you 'understanding' or sympathising with their lifestyle (I couldn't imagine being gay/polygymous myself), but more a matter of respecting other people's right to live a different lifestyle than your own.

There's a new show on HBO called "Big Life" starring Bill Paxton. He has 3 families, and they all live in houses side-by-side (Salt Lake City). I downloaded them all but haven't watched them yet, I'll have to take a look and see how Bill pulls it off

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by ken0042

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.

The social problems that were forecast were pretty dramatic. "The downfall of the of the traditional family" is a fairly big deal so you'd think we'd at least heard of it starting by now.

I don't know anyone who has quit on their marriage and abandoned their children because it is now legal to get homo-hitched. Do you? Does anyone? Has anyone even heard of this happening?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ken0042

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.

Wait...are oyu trying to say people should be forced or coerced into marriage if they've decided not to get married? Or am I just not reading this right?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by White Doors

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

You're thinking of polyamory sounding good. Polygamy would basically mean that you have multiple people you are committed to who aren't in the mood.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Wait...are oyu trying to say people should be forced or coerced into marriage if they've decided not to get married? Or am I just not reading this right?

Let me give a bit of a silly example to get across what I'm saying.

I meet a nice girl. A month into the relationship we find we are always at each other's houses, so she moves in with me. She helps out with the bills, and we are all lovey-dovey.

Seven months later she is tired of me leaving the toilet seat up, and decides to leave me. Because we have been living together for more than 6 months, she is now entitled to half of my stuff. This is due to the current "common law" marriage laws.

Now, if we had gotten married it would be a different story. But I didn't decide that I wanted to be married.

Or here's another example. I get myself a female room mate. She goes around telling people that we are sleeping together, when we aren't. After being room mates for a year she leaves, and tries to sue saying we were common law. It is now up to me to prove that we didn't sleep together.

Then it becomes a question of what if we did sleep together once or twice? Does the fact that we got drunk once and fell into bed together entitle her to $150K?

Now with same sex marriage; the same thing could happen here. That's why I think that gay or straight, it should be up to the couple to say "we want to be an official couple."

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Then it becomes a question of what if we did sleep together once or twice? Does the fact that we got drunk once and fell into bed together entitle her to $150K?

I guess it depends on how "freaky" you are.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Let me give a bit of a silly example to get across what I'm saying.

I meet a nice girl. A month into the relationship we find we are always at each other's houses, so she moves in with me. She helps out with the bills, and we are all lovey-dovey.

Seven months later she is tired of me leaving the toilet seat up, and decides to leave me. Because we have been living together for more than 6 months, she is now entitled to half of my stuff. This is due to the current "common law" marriage laws.

Now, if we had gotten married it would be a different story. But I didn't decide that I wanted to be married.

Or here's another example. I get myself a female room mate. She goes around telling people that we are sleeping together, when we aren't. After being room mates for a year she leaves, and tries to sue saying we were common law. It is now up to me to prove that we didn't sleep together.

Then it becomes a question of what if we did sleep together once or twice? Does the fact that we got drunk once and fell into bed together entitle her to $150K?

Now with same sex marriage; the same thing could happen here. That's why I think that gay or straight, it should be up to the couple to say "we want to be an official couple."

Ok that's fair. How do you then cover the people who chose not to get married but have lived common-law for 40 years?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Reaper

You're thinking of polyamory sounding good. Polygamy would basically mean that you have multiple people you are committed to who aren't in the mood.

haha

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Ok that's fair. How do you then cover the people who chose not to get married but have lived common-law for 40 years?

As was my original point, if one of those people decided they needed protection, they should have insisted that they get married.

IMO, part of the problem is that it is acceptable for an un-married couple to live together; unlike 30 years ago. (That in itself isn't the problem.) But now there's things like equal to married, common law spouse benefits, and other things that make getting married what so many people call "just a piece of paper." By the gov't bending over backwards to accomodate non-married couples, there is little point in actually having the wedding.

Now that there have been common law marriages break up, there's been people crying to the gov't that they should have stepped in to stop them from doing something irresponsible- and I say irresponsible because if you are that dependant on another person, you should have some sort of contract.

Just to take emotions and everything out and to break it down to a simple level- where else does time do this? If I lent a saw to me neighbour and he's had it for 6 months; does he now own it? What if the gov't made that law. If I demand the saw back 5 months and 28 days later, it's mine. But because I don't bug him because I'm busy that weekend, I can't have it back?

But if I agree that he can keep the saw (in a verbal contract) then it's his.

I know a saw is very, very different than marriage. However we are still talking about division of property.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ken0042

As was my original point, if one of those people decided they needed protection, they should have insisted that they get married.

IMO, part of the problem is that it is acceptable for an un-married couple to live together; unlike 30 years ago. (That in itself isn't the problem.) But now there's things like equal to married, common law spouse benefits, and other things that make getting married what so many people call "just a piece of paper." By the gov't bending over backwards to accomodate non-married couples, there is little point in actually having the wedding.

Now that there have been common law marriages break up, there's been people crying to the gov't that they should have stepped in to stop them from doing something irresponsible- and I say irresponsible because if you are that dependant on another person, you should have some sort of contract.

Just to take emotions and everything out and to break it down to a simple level- where else does time do this? If I lent a saw to me neighbour and he's had it for 6 months; does he now own it? What if the gov't made that law. If I demand the saw back 5 months and 28 days later, it's mine. But because I don't bug him because I'm busy that weekend, I can't have it back?

But if I agree that he can keep the saw (in a verbal contract) then it's his.

I know a saw is very, very different than marriage. However we are still talking about division of property.

Maybe division or property is the wrong way to look at this. Let's take into account that maybe one of the partner's falls ill, shouldn't the common-law partner be entitled to their belongings, be given power of attorney, etc?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Now with same sex marriage; the same thing could happen here. That's why I think that gay or straight, it should be up to the couple to say "we want to be an official couple."

This sounds fairly reasonable to me, and with the definition of marriage being made more and more separate from traditional and religious roles I think it would be fine to have marriage simply be like a contract that you choose to enter into for certain formal recognitions and accompanied by plenty of small print.

Removing the traditional associations of marriage from some sort of formal government recognition of it would also remove some of the disincentive for those anti-marriage folks that want to be together for 40 years without bearing the specific mantle. They could just say something like 'Oh yes, we filed form 307-B', and reap the benefits of it. Those that want the tradition can still have it in their ceremonies.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

They could just say something like 'Oh yes, we filed form 307-B', and reap the benefits of it. Those that want the tradition can still have it in their ceremonies.

I think you might be onto something. For the people 40 years married, all they would have to do is have both people list themselves as common law on their tax form. If you don't declare yourself common law, then you aren't.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I don't think cohabitating with someone necessarily means you are instantly considered to be in a common law situation.
I believe it is more of a if you have been living with then you are entiteled to the benefits of common law status, ie health benefits (if work offers them) and tax implications.

So I don't think that a roommate can just claim that the two of you were common law if you both kept seperate taxes and things of that nature.

[ken0042]

OK, I may have been a little off base. Looks like I was wrong, and it takes 3 years (or a baby) before you are considered common law.
http://www.law-faqs.org/ab/inter03.htm

I was positive I had heard 6 months from somewhere; which to me is just plain silly.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Also hopefully it wouldn't become some sort of loophole where you and your buddies get married to save $500 a year in taxes.

There's only one way to audit that tax return... and it ain't gonna be pretty.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by ken0042

OK, I may have been a little off base. Looks like I was wrong, and it takes 3 years (or a baby) before you are considered common law.
http://www.law-faqs.org/ab/inter03.htm

I was positive I had heard 6 months from somewhere; which to me is just plain silly.

per the CRA - 12 months

Common-law partner

This applies to a person who is not your spouse (see above), with whom you are living in a conjugal relationship, and to whom at least one of the following situations applies. He or she:
a) has been living with you in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;
b) is the parent of your child by birth or adoption; or
c) has custody and control of your child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and your child is wholly dependent on that person for support.
In addition, an individual immediately becomes your common-law partner if you previously lived together in a conjugal relationship for at least twelve continuous months and you have resumed living together in such a relationship. Under proposed changes, this condition will no longer exist. The effect of this proposed change is that a person (other than a person described in b) or c) above) will be your common-law partner only after your current relationship with that person has lasted at least 12 continuous months. This proposed change will apply to 2001 and later years.
Reference to "12 continuous months" in this definition includes any period that you were separated for less than 90 days because of a breakdown in the relationship.

[calculoso]

Lots of confusion where this is concerned...

- 12 months to become Common Law for federal tax purposes.
- 3 years (in Alberta) to be in an "Adult Interdependent Partnership".

It's the latter that matters for "divorce" alimony, insurance rights, etc.
http://www.justice.gov.ab.ca/publica...t.aspx?id=2671

[Azure]

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?

So what is wrong with marrying your dog? Your cat? Brother, sister, mom, dad?

Gay marriage should be argued upon the basis of equal rights for everyone. Not, "what is wrong" with it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

So what is wrong with marrying your dog? Your cat? Brother, sister, mom, dad?

Gay marriage should be argued upon the basis of equal rights for everyone. Not, "what is wrong" with it.

Okay so what are you trying to say here? That you have no problem with same-sex marriage but you don't like anyone to ask "what is wrong with it"?

Why do you care if I ask?