First decriminalization, then plural marriages

[Michael Hardner]

Fundamentally, the notion of extending the marriage to include multiple actors erodes the notion of equality within the constructed union.

Randy makes sense. I don't think the courts should be able to declare that the first spouse is somehow unable to make a good choice to enter into a polygamous relationship.

85XXXXX - you're confusing law and morality. We're talking about law here. And - yes - polygamy is illegal but court challenges are about trying to change the laws that we have now.

[85RZ500]

Actually I agree with the first sentence.

What could be used to determine that fact?

But they jam the Charter up front real quick. and this is it's first sentence.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremecy of God and the rule of law"

One could argue that they go hand in hand, and have /will be used on both sides of various issues.

[Molly]

Michael... I can't see it having anything to do with either or both spouses being able to make reasoned decisions-- if they are adults, the decisions are deemed reasoned-- but rather with the multiplication of obligations and entitlements that also impact others who are not consulted.

The state has added a great number of obligations and benefits to spouses, and is entitled to limit the recipients of such benefits to one person. Sponsorship of one spouse upon immigration is one aspect, but a spousal deduction on your income tax, and survivor benefits on your pension are others. Many other non-state obligations are based on special benefits to/from a single spouse.

It's a property contract.

[Michael Hardner]

The state has added a great number of obligations and benefits to spouses, and is entitled to limit the recipients of such benefits to one person. Sponsorship of one spouse upon immigration is one aspect, but a spousal deduction on your income tax, and survivor benefits on your pension are others. Many other non-state obligations are based on special benefits to/from a single spouse.

Ok, Molly.

But this was never used as a rationale for limiting same-sex marriage was it ? As such, it seems like individual freedom seems to have more weight than the state's ability to manage benefits.

[WIP]

It is a slippery slope isn't it, and we were warned..

No, it is only a slippery slope because the vast majority of liberals and conservatives are moral relativists! That's right. I said it! You conservatives are just as much moral relativists as most liberals are, even though you make claims of having "real" values. But what good are they, when you can't give rational reasons to explain how they benefit society. The only thing I heard from the religious right against gay marriage is that it says in the "book" that marriage is between a man and a woman, so what? We don't live in a theocracy. And, the Bible itself is the slippery slope towards legalizing polygamy when the Old Testament section sanctions polygamy and the New Testament equivocates on the issue.

Why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to the benefits of marriage that everyone else has access to! They represent a biologically-defined minority of the population that is not going to increase or decrease whether their relationships are recognized in law or not. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice like plural marriage would be. There are still going to be gay couples whether the state recognizes them, so what is the benefit to society of denying their rights?

Real ethical standards should be guided by how they benefit or harm society, and a quick study by sociologists and anthropologists of societies that practice plural marriage indicate that it cannot coexist with a modern, democratic society. From the previous debate, I can name a number of reasons why it is a bad idea, right off the top:

1. where it is a cultural standard in traditional societies, polygamy always means one man of relatively greater wealth and status, owning a number of wives. This may have made sense in societies that are constantly at war, and have a disparity between the ratio of men to women, but in most of the world today, there are equal numbers of men to women, so that means one rich old patriarch with lots of wives, and therefore lots of children, and a whole bunch of men who can't get any, and have the potential of destablilizing the community. That's why the Saudis send their surplus young men off to get killed by waging jihad, and the North American version - the polygamous Mormons, find stupid excuses to have a whole bunch of teenage boys excommunicated. Just check out the scandal of the Lost Boys for the details.

2. Polygamy is almost never polyandry. It's not about women's freedom to choose who they marry or how many spouses they have: it's about women being owned by men. So, there may be a few middle-aged cougars out there marrying their boy-toys, but the standard is going to be some old religious patriarch, who is married to 20 women.

3. In the case of the polygamous Mormons, so far, most of the families are on welfare or food stamps. The men in these "families" cannot financially support all the women and children, and the women are generally not permitted the freedom to choose a career and work outside the family compound. The same goes for Muslims who have brought extra wives over from their homelands. They have to set them up as unwed mothers on the dole, because they wouldn't otherwise be able to support them.

However, I sure hope that there is full protection for minors if polygamy becomes legal. There has to be more than the age of consent in play here, we have to make sure that even 16 year olds are protected from forced marriages.. I would say that if polygamy becomes legal, then the age of consent for such marriages should be raised to - say - 18...

Sounds like you are sliding down that slippery slope already!

[Visionseeker]

Michael... I can't see it having anything to do with either or both spouses being able to make reasoned decisions-- if they are adults, the decisions are deemed reasoned-- but rather with the multiplication of obligations and entitlements that also impact others who are not consulted.

The state has added a great number of obligations and benefits to spouses, and is entitled to limit the recipients of such benefits to one person. Sponsorship of one spouse upon immigration is one aspect, but a spousal deduction on your income tax, and survivor benefits on your pension are others. Many other non-state obligations are based on special benefits to/from a single spouse.

It's a property contract.

Indeed, the contract law approach is another angle that harms the case for polygamy. It is also the main argument illustrating how the question of homosexual and polygamist marriage cases differ. Gay marriage rights do not seek to alter the basic principle of a joint partnership between two parties to the exclusion of all others. The extension of benefits, property rights and other endowments to homosexual couples who married was a simple matter of acknowledging that a COUPLE need not necessarily be a man and a woman.

Striking the very idea of two people from the definition has more far reaching consequences. In fact, an offence against conjugal rights might speak more to an offence to wider existent contractual constructs than the harm visited upon the first spouse.

But it must be said that there is no right to marriage, only a right to equality. Marriage is a licence, or put another way, an act permitted by the state that is subject to conditions. Confining the act of marriage to one conjugal partnership at a time does not preclude anyone from equal treatment; it is merely a "reasonable" limitation.

The polygamist argument must show that the limitation is unreasonably discriminating. I wish them luck, but I don't believe they'll succeed.

[85RZ500]

But it must be said that there is no right to marriage, only a right to equality. Marriage is a licence, or put another way, an act permitted by the state that is subject to conditions. Confining the act of marriage to one conjugal partnership at a time does not preclude anyone from equal treatment; it is merely a "reasonable" limitation.

The polygamist argument must show that the limitation is unreasonably discriminating. I wish them luck, but I don't believe they'll succeed.

LOL, Gotta love this stuff. "Tolerant" and now "reasonable limitation".

The traditional man/woman definition of marriage has been struck down. Those defending the polygamist cause will undeniablly use that to argue their case. And it will be a powerfull argument to put forth.

I do not wish them luck but I believe they'll suceed.

[Molly]

"an act permitted by the state that is subject to conditions."

Call me myopic, but I still reject that, even as a nicely worded description.

The state does not 'allow' marriage. Marriage existed long before the state took notice of it. The state merely defines what marriage means TO THE STATE, in its role of provisor of some benefits, and arbiter when the (co-signators) are in dispute.

'Legal marriage' is agreement to the terms set out by the state. Other arrangements, other terms, are freely available to anyone, in the past, present and future....

'Marriage' and 'legal marriage' are not the same thing. Failing to qualify for 'legal marriage', or not wishing to accept the 'legal marriage' (contract) does not mean being disallowed from 'marriage'.

So... 'banning' polygamy is outside the states pervue-- no business in the bedrooms of the nation, etc. It functionally cannot be 'banned', and there is great doubt whether the attempt would even be desireable (except where other laws are broken).

[Michael Hardner]

Also, since partnerships are drawn up with clauses for dissolution, or the admission of new partners - why would a marriage contract not be changeable in the same way ?

[Oleg Bach]

When the Americans out lawed plural marriage among the Mormons, it was supposedly done on "moral" grounds..but the real reason was - that one patriach who eventually could have 60 adult children - could have a block vote of 61 people..and if in a colony there were a number of patriarchs that is political power - that had to be quelled. Personally - If a male wants to have more than one wife - It is no ones buisness..but formal marriage that is sanctioned by the state - is just control over people econonmically. biologicall, politically and socially......Everyone looks at this issue from some sort of moral high ground - It is about human independence and total atonomy - creating a very secure support system - and the state does not want us to stand in groups but alone...that way they have authority.

[guyser]

Also, since partnerships are drawn up with clauses for dissolution, or the admission of new partners - why would a marriage contract not be changeable in the same way ?

YOu mean the "shotgun" clause ?

Some try.

[Molly]

Michael, clauses for dissolution, and/or for changing partners already exist within a 'legal marriage' contract.

But, since there are additional parties obliged by 'legal marriage', limiting those benefits to one is a reasonable limit.

Nothing at present prevents side agreements, through which (a single unit of) benefits and entitlements could be shared, but the state- an effected third party- cannot be forced into greater obligation than that single unit.

[Michael Hardner]

Molly,

Michael, clauses for dissolution, and/or for changing partners already exist within a 'legal marriage' contract.

But, since there are additional parties obliged by 'legal marriage', limiting those benefits to one is a reasonable limit.

Why ? If I have a partnership with one other person, and we both agree to let a third person into the partnership, why is limiting that arrangement "reasonable" ?

Nothing at present prevents side agreements, through which (a single unit of) benefits and entitlements could be shared, but the state- an effected third party- cannot be forced into greater obligation than that single unit.

But, then we're back to - what seems to me is - an economic argument. The state can't be obliged to provide additional benefits to a new spouse, yet this is exactly what happened with same-sex marriage.

I still can't see any legal reason why polygamy can't be allowed.

[85RZ500]

Michael, it will be allowed, watch and see, this is Canada, remember.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, it will be allowed, watch and see, this is Canada, remember.

8,

What does that mean ? I guess it means that Canada is more permissive than other countries ?

[Oleg Bach]

If two males can marry - or two females can marry - that means the marriage no longer exists - so plural marriage is simply an encouragement to have multi-sex partners - Just like our social engineers want - to debase the person and destroy what is left of formal marriage and the power it creates...marriage is gone..welcome to everybody f***ing everybody. Have you not figured out that we are being incrimentally brought down to a level below animal?

[Smallc]

Michael, it will be allowed, watch and see, this is Canada, remember.

Does that imply that you dislike Canada?

[Molly]

"Why ? If I have a partnership with one other person, and we both agree to let a third person into the partnership, why is limiting that arrangement "reasonable"

The state cannot and does not limit you from inviting a third party into your partnership... but the state does limit it's own liability to a single associate of any of you.

"But, then we're back to - what seems to me is - an economic argument. The state can't be obliged to provide additional benefits to a new spouse, yet this is exactly what happened with same-sex marriage. I still can't see any legal reason why polygamy can't be allowed."

Different premises entirely, Michael. The state can't discriminate between citizens on the basis of gender. If folks can have A spouse recieving benefits from the state, the state cannot say 'unless they are x gender'. It's all the same as the state being unable to specify 'Women (wives) can recieve survivors benefits but men (husbands) can't, or 'Women can get student loans but men can't'. That consistency is the states own over-riding rule.

There is no such over-riding rule that would prevent the state from restricting it's liability to 1 to a customer.

Now if the charter also listed 'marital status' as a basis for non-discrimination, there might be a problem....

[Randy Nicholas]

If two males can marry - or two females can marry - that means the marriage no longer exists - so plural marriage is simply an encouragement to have multi-sex partners - Just like our social engineers want - to debase the person and destroy what is left of formal marriage and the power it creates...marriage is gone..welcome to everybody f***ing everybody. Have you not figured out that we are being incrimentally brought down to a level below animal?

uhm, two men can marry and two women can marry, and still there are plenty of married heterosexual people. Marriage still exists, and to say otherwise is extremely ridiculous.

First of all, marriage has not stopped everyone from having sex with everyone, it only pretends that that does not happen. the statistics of adultery and divorce are proof enough to know that having monogamous marriage does not stop promiscuity anymore than preaching abstinence to children does.

Perhaps we all need to ask ourselves why we are so interested in the sexual practices of others?

If you believe that only a man and a woman should be paired, then you are free to live your life that way. Simply being a heterosexual person, however, does not give you the right to dictate how life should be lived by everyone.

[Michael Hardner]

Molly,

"But, then we're back to - what seems to me is - an economic argument. The state can't be obliged to provide additional benefits to a new spouse, yet this is exactly what happened with same-sex marriage. I still can't see any legal reason why polygamy can't be allowed."

Different premises entirely, Michael. The state can't discriminate between citizens on the basis of gender. If folks can have A spouse recieving benefits from the state, the state cannot say 'unless they are x gender'. It's all the same as the state being unable to specify 'Women (wives) can recieve survivors benefits but men (husbands) can't, or 'Women can get student loans but men can't'. That consistency is the states own over-riding rule.

Not different at all. In fact, same.

The state can't discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion either. That's also guaranteed in the constitution, and that's the whole argument here.

[Oleg Bach]

uhm, two men can marry and two women can marry, and still there are plenty of married heterosexual people. Marriage still exists, and to say otherwise is extremely ridiculous.

First of all, marriage has not stopped everyone from having sex with everyone, it only pretends that that does not happen. the statistics of adultery and divorce are proof enough to know that having monogamous marriage does not stop promiscuity anymore than preaching abstinence to children does.

Perhaps we all need to ask ourselves why we are so interested in the sexual practices of others?

If you believe that only a man and a woman should be paired, then you are free to live your life that way. Simply being a heterosexual person, however, does not give you the right to dictate how life should be lived by everyone.

Not dictating, just stating facts - When some man stands behind the counter at the paint store and tells me about his "husband" then he is a male who has re-defined himself as a female - with the assistance of social engineers and the government..but he is male. Once you re-define what sex is then you re-define what life itself is - and the proverbial slippery slope..that redefines life and death is entered. As for "preaching" abstinence - what's wrong with letting kids know that your first true love is the one you are meant to be with for life? Yes people need to ask themselves whey they are interested in the sexual practice of others especially the young. The worst of this vacarious bunch are the sexually inept - who for instance want to lower the age of concent - that leads me to believe there are leaders in society who are seeking to have sex with younger and younger people because THEY are interested in this perversion.

I do not have a problem with true homo-sexuals who are perhaps genetically pre-disposed to being what they are - eunuchs have been around for a thousand years.... This same sex marriage thing is bizarre..sex with the same sex is not sex - by true and real definition..sex means - male and female..this social mutation is a deliberate debasement of our old institution of marriage because there are those who know that a man and woman in a long lasting relationship emulate power - there are those who seek to dis-empower who they can - because they are grand control freaks ---- If you think that those that protect homo-sexuals or Jews etc..really care about these people you are mistaken - gays are used politically and most that I speak to dispise your point of views and are smart to the fact they are pawns.

So in the over view - once you have re-defined what sex is (re-generation of life) - then you have in effect taken the first step in destroying what a the real reason for a relationship between a man and a woman are..You are changing the dynamics of power and shifting it into the hands of a few - while the majority in time will become powerless and as I said - will be busy f***ing everything that moves - while they are busying themselves ...they are pliable slaves - Hitler tried the same thing - he attempted to breed monkies with humans in a failed attempt to create a slave race.....I don't see this as being to far aside from this type of biological control of the populace....and condoms - If you do not want to get a disease or do not want to have a child - then abstain ------- If are serious and want sex - take a partner for life and have children.

BUT taking a partner for life and having children is discouraged right from the UN down to the public school system. This is about human dignity and personal atonomy and real power - this is a dis-empowerment and dis respect of humanity.

[Randy Nicholas]

Not dictating, just stating facts - When some man stands behind the counter at the paint store and tells me about his "husband" then he is a male who has re-defined himself as a female - with the assistance of social engineers and the government..but he is male. Once you re-define what sex is then you re-define what life itself is - and the proverbial slippery slope..that redefines life and death is entered. As for "preaching" abstinence - what's wrong with letting kids know that your first true love is the one you are meant to be with for life? Yes people need to ask themselves whey they are interested in the sexual practice of others especially the young. The worst of this vacarious bunch are the sexually inept - who for instance want to lower the age of concent - that leads me to believe there are leaders in society who are seeking to have sex with younger and younger people because THEY are interested in this perversion.

Your facts need checking. This is all according to your seemingly narrow, uninformed opinion, as it is not based on any fact that I am aware of.

I do not have a problem with true homo-sexuals who are perhaps genetically pre-disposed to being what they are - eunuchs have been around for a thousand years.... This same sex marriage thing is bizarre..sex with the same sex is not sex - by true and real definition..sex means - male and female..this social mutation is a deliberate debasement of our old institution of marriage because there are those who know that a man and woman in a long lasting relationship emulate power - there are those who seek to dis-empower who they can - because they are grand control freaks ---- If you think that those that protect homo-sexuals or Jews etc..really care about these people you are mistaken - gays are used politically and most that I speak to dispise your point of views and are smart to the fact they are pawns.

Here's the thing, nobody cares what you do and do not have a problem with because none of it is any of your business. What people do in their lives and their homes has nothing whatever to do with you. What you are proposing is that we bend society to a definition we have created, rather than evaluating our definitions in context of our society. Seems perfectly ludicrous to me.

So in the over view - once you have re-defined what sex is (re-generation of life) - then you have in effect taken the first step in destroying what a the real reason for a relationship between a man and a woman are..

What are those reasons?

You are changing the dynamics of power and shifting it into the hands of a few - while the majority in time will become powerless and as I said - will be busy f***ing everything that moves - while they are busying themselves ...they are pliable slaves - Hitler tried the same thing - he attempted to breed monkies with humans in a failed attempt to create a slave race.....I don't see this as being to far aside from this type of biological control of the populace....and condoms -

I read this a few times to make sure you were serious. Your conclusions are wild and not based on anything you've said. You seem to pull them out of nowhere. Where is the shifting of power? How has this shift negatively impacted our current society? I also fail to see how breeding monekys with humans can be compared to polygamy or homosexual unions.

If you do not want to get a disease or do not want to have a child - then abstain ------- If are serious and want sex - take a partner for life and have children.

What about people who can't have children? They should be denied any physical pleasure? So in your world, only people like you get to have sex?

Good thing you aren't in charge. And thankfully you represent a small minority of opinion in this country.

BUT taking a partner for life and having children is discouraged right from the UN down to the public school system. This is about human dignity and personal atonomy and real power - this is a dis-empowerment and dis respect of humanity.

I really don't know what you're talking about. it seems you've heard some things over the years and hve formed your opinion based on that. Taking a partner for life is not discouraged by anyone anywhere. Show me the proof of that statement. Otherwise, it's just what you say. And I'll forgive myself if i don't just take your word for it.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Randy Nicholas

[Oleg Bach]

Okay I did get a little wild with the Hilter ape thing. The purpose of male and female relations is to enjoy each other and create an intimacey that lessens the hardship that is the human condition - It's simply not good to be alone - people thrive in pairs -- the purpose of marriage is to have the above mentioned and to fullfill their biological and spiritual purpose - which is to regenerate themselves through offspring - and partake in the wealth and power and joy of family life...No I am not against pleasure - and intimate human contact which is the contract..I am against the usery of people and the manipulation of the populatin though their emotions and their sexual needs...It's anti-nature and it's cruel and abusive to control people though their hunger whether it be sexual or nutritional.

I don't care what people do in private - but I do care about the manipulation of the naive or those of limited intellectual ability - for instance if a male is to ugly or defective..it's a gross assualt on the dignity of that person to be systemically moved towards a homo-sexual life style. I saw this approach in the court system - IF - they believe you do not have the where with all to understand that you are being abused and used - they will abuse you - much like kicking a dog in private because the dog can not sell you out to public scrutiny because that dog can not articulate the abuse.

People in general are not very aware or in fully developed intellectually - and to take advantage of the poor of mind and spirit - is no less a crime .

[Randy Nicholas]

Okay I did get a little wild with the Hilter ape thing. The purpose of male and female relations is to enjoy each other and create an intimacey that lessens the hardship that is the human condition - It's simply not good to be alone - people thrive in pairs -- the purpose of marriage is to have the above mentioned and to fullfill their biological and spiritual purpose - which is to regenerate themselves through offspring - and partake in the wealth and power and joy of family life...

There are many homosexual and polygamous families that achieve all the things you are talking about. These joys should not be denied any sane and reasonable adult.

No I am not against pleasure - and intimate human contact which is the contract..I am against the usery of people and the manipulation of the populatin though their emotions and their sexual needs...It's anti-nature and it's cruel and abusive to control people though their hunger whether it be sexual or nutritional.

How do you define anti-nature? What source are you referencing? Natural means that which occurs without interference. Sexual desires and urges occur in humans of every race and gender. Stifling them with morality is in fact, much more unnatural than experiencing those urges and desires. Who is doing the controlling? This is an example of where you fly off on something... how did you get there?

If 2, 3 or more people are ina committed relationship, it doesn't matter what outsiders think about it, or if they can understand it. How are homosexuals or polygamists being controlled by their sexual hunger?

I don't care what people do in private

Good.

- but I do care about the manipulation of the naive or those of limited intellectual ability

Yes...

- for instance if a male is to ugly or defective..it's a gross assualt on the dignity of that person to be systemically moved towards a homo-sexual life style.

What? Are you saying that all homosexuals are ugly or defective? And who told you human dignity was a tangible and finite thing? I also find it cute that you think people can be 'systematically moved towards a homosexual lifestyle".

I saw this approach in the court system - IF - they believe you do not have the where with all to understand that you are being abused and used - they will abuse you - much like kicking a dog in private because the dog can not sell you out to public scrutiny because that dog can not articulate the abuse.

Okay, I follow your point here. People in positions of power should not abuse their power over others, and currently people in power do. What exactly does that have to do with the issue though?

People in general are not very aware or in fully developed intellectually - and to take advantage of the poor of mind and spirit - is no less a crime .

You are trying to argue the a majority of people are under-intellectually developed? Canada is one of the most educated countries in the world. And you still haven't clarified who's taking advantage of all of us poor homosexuals.

Still, neither your opinions of the 'natural' way people should be, nor the opinions of anyone else on this forum can effectively argue against staying the hell out of people's private lives. Give me a reason BEYOND morality that polygamy and homosexuality are so corrupting.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Randy Nicholas

[Oleg Bach]

There are many homosexual and polygamous families that achieve all the things you are talking about. These joys should not be denied any sane and reasonable adult.

How do you define anti-nature? What source are you referencing? Natural means that which occurs without interference. Sexual desires and urges occur in humans of every race and gender. Stifling them with morality is in fact, much more unnatural than experiencing those urges and desires. Who is doing the controlling? This is an example of where you fly off on something... how did you get there?

If 2, 3 or more people are ina committed relationship, it doesn't matter what outsiders think about it, or if they can understand it. How are homosexuals or polygamists being controlled by their sexual hunger?

Good.

Yes...

What? Are you saying that all homosexuals are ugly or defective? And who told you human dignity was a tangible and finite thing? I also find it cute that you think people can be 'systematically moved towards a homosexual lifestyle".

Okay, I follow your point here. People in positions of power should not abuse their power over others, and currently people in power do. What exactly does that have to do with the issue though?

You are trying to argue the a majority of people are under-intellectually developed? Canada is one of the most educated countries in the world. And you still haven't clarified who's taking advantage of all of us poor homosexuals.

Still, neither your opinions of the 'natural' way people should be, nor the opinions of anyone else on this forum can effectively argue against staying the hell out of people's private lives. Give me a reason BEYOND morality that polygamy and homosexuality are so corrupting.

If you can not or will not breed you are defective - and is a breeder more valuable on on a higher level than a non-breeding creature? I would say so in the natural scheme of things _ am I as a human being more valuable than a homosexual? Of course I would be akin to a bull that can produce more live stock - and the non-breeding bull is eaten. You ask to many questions...and I have to many answers...as for ugly gay people - I do see older gay couples and THEY ARE NOT GIFTED WITH BEAUTY THAT NO ONE WANTS THEM OTHER THAN ANOTHER GAY UGLY PERSON --- AND THAT IS NATURAL God I feel sorry for them...I mean real homely dithering ugly men...no wonder they are gay..what else could they do?