DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Divorce is complex enough as it is and you want more alimony payments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Divorce is complex enough as it is and you want more alimony payments? That's a good point, but would be predicated on divorcing all of ones spouses….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 That's a good point, but would be predicated on divorcing all of ones spouses….. What if they all divorce YOU?? Ladies...I promise I'll buy more houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 What if they all divorce YOU?? It’s called a prenuptial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 It’s called a prenuptial Let's hope... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Let's hope... And to add, in this day and age, I’d be quite comfortable with all of my wives earning more money then I.......maybe they might be paying me....a golden handshake if you will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 So, should polygamy be made legal? Yes. If so, how would it then work for taxes and benefits? There should be no taxes and benefits for marriage. And what of marriages between siblings/cousins? If they’re adults, why not right? Marriage is fine. Reproduction on the other hand is problematic as it creates offspring with increased vulnerability to genetic diseases. are not humans a social group naturally? When did monogamous relationships start? Interestingly, the closest relatives of humans (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans) are all polygamous and most likely the common ancestor we had with them was polygamous, so humans aren't naturally monogamous like swans. However, as humans developed larger brains, the requirements for parents to take care of their children to teach then skills has grown (and it's still growing, some people live with their parents for the first 3 decades of their life); this increase in demand for parents has encouraged humans to be more monogamous than their ape-relatives. So to answer your question, humans are nether completely monogamous or completely polygamous, we are somewhere in between. Anyway, to answer your question, as long as it is between consenting adults then why shouldn't those consenting adults be able to get married? Heck, if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a non-human wants to marry a human then I would be fine with that too. But overall, I think that the institution of marriage should be abolished. The state shouldn't determine who is and who isn't married, individuals should. If those individuals want to enter in contracts (like they want to share property and live together) they can do that without the state institution of marriage. You can have wedding ceremonies and wear rings even if the government institution of marriage no longer exists. Getting rid of marriage will also get rid of all the legal costs associated with divorce, income-splitting, etc. That said, the government might have a role when it comes to reproduction. Obviously you want to avoid genetic diseases (as a result of incest for example), if the population growth rate is too small then you want might to incentive child births (ex. Russia) and if the population growth rate is too high then you might want to discourage child births (ex. China). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Divorce is complex enough as it is and you want more alimony payments? Abolish alimony payments then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Abolish alimony payments then? Lee Marvin would have approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 And to add, in this day and age, I’d be quite comfortable with all of my wives earning more money then I.......maybe they might be paying me....a golden handshake if you will If only...lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Are there any good reasons for the government to be in the relationship sanctioning business? On the surface I have no problem with any two or more people living together as a married unit. Tax laws can be adjusted, insurance and benefit rules can be altered, etc. The one problem that comes to mind is the potential effect on children. Would non state sanctioned unions between groups of people or siblings be any more or less stable than current marriages? I doubt there would be a noticeable difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Are there any good reasons for the government to be in the relationship sanctioning business? On the surface I have no problem with any two or more people living together as a married unit. Tax laws can be adjusted, insurance and benefit rules can be altered, etc. Agreed. The one problem that comes to mind is the potential effect on children. Would non state sanctioned unions between groups of people or siblings be any more or less stable than current marriages? I doubt there would be a noticeable difference. Exactly, I don’t see much difference between a family that has divorced and both parents remarried…..Frankly, in a stable relationship, I don’t think too many parents ensuring the welfare of any children is a bad thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 The argument that polygamy is the next step after accepting gay marriage is only a compelling argument among those who still find gay marriage unacceptable. That's not correct. It's also a compelling argument to those of us who find polygamy acceptable, or find that the government has no business telling consenting adults what kind of relationship, cohabitation, and income-sharing arrangements they may want to enter into with other consenting adults. Anyway, I agree with e, why is marriage a state institution at all? It shouldn't be. Tax advantages for married couples are also a form of discrimination against people who choose not to marry, and should be done away with. Some people may be straight, others may be gay, and yet others may be uninterested in or unable to enter long term relationships with others at all. Why should such people face a heavier burden of taxation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Gay marriage became legal only because societal standards evolved to where homosexuality was no longer considered unacceptable by the majority population. The argument that polygamy is the next step after accepting gay marriage is only a compelling argument among those who still find gay marriage unacceptable. To the rest of us, it's no comparison. Actually, I always found the comparisons to the bestiality and pedophilia slippery slope pretty idiotic but I was torn on this one. It's patriarchal, sure, but as long as it's consenting adults who are free to leave the marriage as they wished (unlike cult-like polygamous societies now), I'm mixed. On the one hand, I agree with you that there is no comparison because one was about equality and the other isn't, but they do share the commonality of consenting adults unlike the other slippery slope arguments. Studies actually show that polygamy benefits women and monogamy suits men because in latter societies all men have a chance at having a woman whereas in the former, there is a shortage of women for men without wealth. As a feminist I disagree with polygamy but as a social liberal, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 It's patriarchal, sure, Studies actually show that polygamy benefits women and monogamy suits men because in latter societies all men have a chance at having a woman whereas in the former, there is a shortage of women for men without wealth. Wait, what prevents a woman from marrying multiple men? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Anyway, I agree with e, why is marriage a state institution at all? It shouldn't be. Marriage is a state institution because a significant amount of people want their marriage to be recognized by the state. This is what most people want and it does no harm to those that do not want it or are opposed to it. Tax advantages for married couples are also a form of discrimination against people who choose not to marry, and should be done away with. Some people may be straight, others may be gay, and yet others may be uninterested in or unable to enter long term relationships with others at all. Why should such people face a heavier burden of taxation? What kinds of tax advantages are there for married couples in Canada? Do corporations and joint-ownership companies have tax advantages compared to self-employed individuals? If so, is that "discriminatory" too? Married (including common-law) couples should be taxed as jointly and file one single tax return. Why should one family earning $0 + $80,000 = $80,000 pay thoudsands of dollars more in income tax compared to a family of $40,000 + $40,000 = $80,000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 because one was about equality and the other isn't, but they do share the commonality of consenting adults unlike the other slippery slope arguments. Studies actually show that polygamy benefits women and monogamy suits men because in latter societies all men have a chance at having a woman whereas in the former, there is a shortage of women for men without wealth. As a feminist I disagree with polygamy but as a social liberal, I don't know. Sorry - is there an assumption here that we're talking about one male spouse many females ? Otherwise, I don't understand how a study could show polygamy generally benefiting women without qualification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) Sorry - is there an assumption here that we're talking about one male spouse many females ? Otherwise, I don't understand how a study could show polygamy generally benefiting women without qualification.Polygamy is one male with multiple wives. Polyandry is the opposite. Polyamory is the general term. Edited January 13, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Polygamy is one male with multiple wives. Polyandry is the opposite. Polyamory is the general term. TIL that polygamy is a gender specific term. Is anybody arguing for polyandry ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Marriage is a state institution because a significant amount of people want their marriage to be recognized by the state. This is what most people want and it does no harm to those that do not want it or are opposed to it. Yeah cause placing disproportionate tax burdens on non-married individuals is totally fair. *sarcasm* Unnecessary legal costs associated with state defined marriage also make sense. *sarcasm* That aside, I don't understand why it should be a state institution. If we got rid of it, people could just enter in their own legal contracts and have their wedding ceremonies and call each other husband and wife. Marriage is a cultural thing and does not need government. What kinds of tax advantages are there for married couples in Canada? Income splitting. Not to mention married couples often benefit from each other's insurance. Married (including common-law) couples should be taxed as jointly and file one single tax return. Why should one family earning $0 + $80,000 = $80,000 pay thoudsands of dollars more in income tax compared to a family of $40,000 + $40,000 = $80,000? I agree, so let's abolish the progressive taxation system and have 1 rate for everyone (plus a minimum guaranteed income). On the other hand, why should a married couple earning 80,000 dollars total pay less tax than a non-married couple earning 80,000 dollars? Polygamy is one male with multiple wives. Polyandry is the opposite. Polyamory is the general term. Incorrect definitions. Polygamy - a marriage that includes more than two partners Polygyny - a form of polygamy whereby a man takes two or more wives at the same time Polyandry - a form of polygamy whereby a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 TIL that polygamy is a gender specific term. Is anybody arguing for polyandry ?Happy to contribute to your growth today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Yeah cause placing disproportionate tax burdens on non-married individuals is totally fair. *sarcasm* Unnecessary legal costs associated with state defined marriage also make sense. *sarcasm* That aside, I don't understand why it should be a state institution. If we got rid of it, people could just enter in their own legal contracts and have their wedding ceremonies and call each other husband and wife. Marriage is a cultural thing and does not need government. What legal costs? What tax burdens? Canada does not have income splitting, except for seniors. Marriage does not need governement, but people want marriage to be recognized by the government. When enough people ask the governement for a service, the governement's duty is to deliver that service, (as long as it respects the Charter and is at a reasonable cost, etc...), right? Not to mention married couples often benefit from each other's insurance. Insurance companies are private companies that set their own premiums. Don't married people, on average, life longer and healthier lives? On the other hand, why should a married couple earning 80,000 dollars total pay less tax than a non-married couple earning 80,000 dollars? AFAIK, they don't (and they shouldn't). How are they taxed differently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 Incorrect definitions. Polygamy - a marriage that includes more than two partners[/size] Polygyny - a form of [/size]polygamy whereby a man takes two or more wives at the same time[/size] Polyandry - a form of [/size]polygamy whereby a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time[/size] Strictly speaking what you posted is right. But generally polygamy is used to refer to a husband that takes many wives (see dictionary.com's first definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polygamy?s=t ) since polyandry is used to refer to the opposite. Polyamory can be just multiple "loves" without marriage, but is often the general term for multiple spouses. Polygyny is rarely if ever used in modern text when referring to human partnership and marriage. It's usually used as a term when referring to plants, animals, and insects, particularly male animals that breed with more than one female partner during the mating season. So the common uses for marriage, which is what this thread has been about, are the ones I outlined: polygamy is usually a man that takes multiple wives, polyandry a wife that takes multiple husbands, and polyamory the generic term. We're being pedantic here though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 What legal costs? Name changes, divorces, alimony, etc. What tax burdens? Canada does not have income splitting, except for seniors. So you admit income splitting exists. Good. Marriage does not need governement, but people want marriage to be recognized by the government. I'm a person and I don't want the government to recognize marriage. I know many people that would agree with me. When enough people ask the governement for a service, the governement's duty is to deliver that service, (as long as it respects the Charter and is at a reasonable cost, etc...), right? So if enough people want Sharia law then it is the government's duty to enforce Sharia law? Insurance companies are private companies that set their own premiums. Don't married people, on average, life longer and healthier lives? So discrimination is okay as long as it is done by private companies? If you get rid of the legal classification of people by marital status then insurance companies can no longer do this. AFAIK, they don't (and they shouldn't). How are they taxed differently? Income splitting + progressive tax system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted January 13, 2014 Report Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) Name changes, divorces, alimony, etc. Peanuts. Besides, most are user-fee services. So you admit income splitting exists. Good. Yes, I am in favour of income splitting for all married/common law Canadians. Income splitting is not discriminatory against singles just like corporations/joint-ownerships are not discriminatory against self-employed companies. I'm a person and I don't want the government to recognize marriage. I know many people that would agree with me. You are in the minority, and your rights are not being violated. That's too bad for you. So if enough people want Sharia law then it is the government's duty to enforce Sharia law? No, I covered that one already: Sharia Law violates the Charter. So discrimination is okay as long as it is done by private companies? If you get rid of the legal classification of people by marital status then insurance companies can no longer do this. I wouldn't call it discrimination. You ducked my question, studies show that married people live longer and are healthier. Would it not be reasonable that insurance companies charge lower premiums? Also, companies have customer acquisition costs and rewards for referrals, doesn't it make sense to pass these saving onto the customer when buying insurance for two people? Are you going to have governments ban and then enforce a ban on "seniors discounts", "student discounts", "family admission rates", "low-income admittance discounts" in private companies? I thought that you were in favour of less regulation/government involvement. Edited January 13, 2014 by carepov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.