Polygamy....

[-1=e^ipi]

Income splitting is not discriminatory against singles just like corporations/joint-ownerships are not discriminatory against self-employed companies.

Yeah it is discriminatory, and not just against singles. Why should non-married couples have to pay higher tax than married couples?

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?

White people live longer and are healthier than black people. Is it not reasonable that insurance companies charge lower premiums to white people?

No, I covered that one already: Sharia Law violates the Charter.

not withstanding clause.

[carepov]

Yeah it is discriminatory, and not just against singles. Why should non-married couples have to pay higher tax than married couples?

They don't. In taxation common-law is the same as married.

Is income splitting of conglomorates discriminatory against single-industry businesses, small businesses, or self-employed people?

White people live longer and are healthier than black people. Is it not reasonable that insurance companies charge lower premiums to white people?

Are you sure about that, after controlling for income, smoking, etc...?

not withstanding clause.

I also specified that "majority rules" does not apply when rights are violated therefore Sharia Law is a bad example.

[BubberMiley]

I also specified that "majority rules" does not apply when rights are violated therefore Sharia Law is a bad example.

How come you quoted his entire post except the question at the end, which you avoided answering?

[carepov]

How come you quoted his entire post except the question at the end, which you avoided answering?

I was in a hurry.

It is not reasonable for insurance companies to charge lower premiums to white people. This is discriminatory and very different from charging lower premiums for married people for several reasons:

1. Theoretically anyone can get married or live common law if they choose to - not so with skin color.

2. Race is not binary (black or white) the way marital status is

3. Insurance companies would loose a lot of business if they implemented such a policy

4. I'm sure that there are more...

[-1=e^ipi]

Are you sure about that, after controlling for income, smoking, etc...?

Why are you not applying the same standards of controlling for income, smoking, etc. to your claim that married people live longer and healthier lives? Whether there actually is a genetic tendency for people of some races to live longer than people of other races is besides the point.

1. Theoretically anyone can get married or live common law if they choose to - not so with skin color.

2. Race is not binary (black or white) the way marital status is

So if a law was passed that says that all non-muslims must pay a jizya tax to the state (but muslims are exempt), then you would be fine with it since anyone can choose to become muslim?

I also specified that "majority rules" does not apply when rights are violated therefore Sharia Law is a bad example.

Could you define these rights?

[-1=e^ipi]

No, I covered that one already: Sharia Law violates the Charter.

I'll play Mohammed's advocate here: Since when do human laws trump the laws according to the will of Allah?

[carepov]

Why are you not applying the same standards of controlling for income, smoking, etc. to your claim that married people live longer and healthier lives? Whether there actually is a genetic tendency for people of some races to live longer than people of other races is besides the point.

I could be wrong, but I beleive that controlled studies have been done to show married people live longer healthier lives. (I will look it up). It makes busines sense to give discounts to married couples and it is not discriminating against singles. This is not equivalent to discriminating against a race.

So if a law was passed that says that all non-muslims must pay a jizya tax to the state (but muslims are exempt), then you would be fine with it since anyone can choose to become muslim?

I've never thought about it, but probably not.

Look it is still not the same. As a single person, you don't even have to buy life insurance. In fact why would you even want life insurance? And even if you did you could shop around, maybe there are companies that don't give discounts to married couples.

Could you define these rights?

These rights are defined by the UDHR and our Charter.

I'll play Mohammed's advocate here: Since when do human laws trump the laws according to the will of Allah?

Since December 10, 1948

[BC_chick]

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.

The assumption I made was based on anthropological studies as well as current societies that practice similar male-female partnerships. Almost always, it's one male and several females and almost never the other way around. Even around the world today many such societies exist.

As for the benefits for women: of course in a modern society where women have access to education and independence this is not true, but from a anthropological perspective polygamy benefitted women because more women had access for marrying into wealth (thereby being provided for).

Eta - and as I mentioned monogamy benefitted men because more men had access to women instead of female 'ownership' by wealthy men.

Edited January 14, 2014 by BC_chick

[-1=e^ipi]

I could be wrong, but I beleive that controlled studies have been done to show married people live longer healthier lives. (I will look it up).

Yet the idea that different races might have genetic tenancies to live longer alludes you?

What are you trying to say? That we should have marriage because it makes people live longer? Correlation != Causation.

I've never thought about it, but probably not.

Why? According to you, it is not discrimination because anyone can become muslim.

Look it is still not the same. As a single person, you don't even have to buy life insurance. In fact why would you even want life insurance? And even if you did you could shop around, maybe there are companies that don't give discounts to married couples.

Why do you keep talking about single vs married, you are making a false dichotomy. What about all the non-married couples (some of which are in happy relationships and may even have children)?

These rights are defined by the UDHR and our Charter.

"

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

"

Where does it say that the state must define marriage and make it a state institution?

Edit: not that i give a damn what the UN thinks

Edited January 14, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Looking at the un charter it has some weird 'rights':

"(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."

It's a right to form monopolies on labour that counter the economic interest of the entire nation?

"No one may be compelled to belong to an association."

Well so much for mandatory labour unions. (edit: not saying there is anything wrong with this 'right' just pointing out that most western countries go against this)

"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay."

It's a right to get paid while on holidays?

"Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace."

So education should NOT be about teaching people useful skills that they can use in life and/or increasing the knowledge of the society? It's directed at developing our personalities (whatever that means) and making sure we worship the UN?

"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

So religious fundamentalist parents have a right to choose what kind of education the children receive? So if they don't like evolution they can choose to send kids to a school where they teach creationism as science?

"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."

What does this even mean?

Edited January 14, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

The assumption I made was based on anthropological studies as well as current societies that practice similar male-female -

Cyber explained my misunderstanding to me. Thanks for the further clarification.

[cybercoma]

Looking at the un charter it has some weird 'rights':

"(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."

It's a right to form monopolies on labour that counter the economic interest of the entire nation?

"No one may be compelled to belong to an association.[/size]"

Well so much for mandatory labour unions. (edit: not saying there is anything wrong with this 'right' just pointing out that most western countries go against this)

The right isn't for mandatory labour unions. The right has to do with the freedom of forming and joining one without being beaten or murdered by the police (i.e., the government) like folks were in the early 20th century (see Winnipeg). You talk about monopolies over labour and of course there's a monopoly on labour. It's the only thing the workers have to offer that the employers don't have. You say they run counter to the economic interests of the nation, but hoarding wealth at the top of the pyramid is disastrously stupid on the part of the wealthy. Having a massive impoverished nation because you want to drive everyone's wages and benefits to zero (that is the goal of all business, i.e., eliminate as much expenses as possible) is not beneficial to the economy of a nation. Having a large middle class with a sizeable chunk of the wealth does benefit society. They are the ones that demand goods and service. They're the ones that vote with their money on what should be produced and offered by industry. By putting wealth into their hands everyone benefits from top to bottom. Industry knows what to produce, they get more money from the consumers in order to hire more people and expand their businesses. The most damaging economic myth ever conceived was that there is a trickle-down effect in the economy. The truth is that it's cyclical. If money doesn't trickle up through consumers demanding goods and services, then there is no trickle-down effect because the producers don't know where to invest. Reagan and all the foolishly ignorant economists that believe in supply-side economics seem to think that producers will create jobs with no demand, as long as the government gives them tax breaks and financial incentives. They don't. They sit on the money until they're signalled by the market that there's demand. With no money for the consumers to create demand, that never happens.

So what does this have to do with unions? Everywhere they foster a strong middle class of consumers and demand creators. They benefit everyone in society by increasing the wealth that goes to the middle class. So, to say it in no uncertain terms, it is wrong to say that the interests of unions is counter to the interests of the nation.

Regardless, the declaration of rights does not say that people should be forced to join unions. Just that they have a right to join and create them if they so choose without the government denying them that right. People are also not to be compelled to join associations. What this means is that governments cannot force their citizens to join associations. Employers can refuse to negotiate with individuals when there is a union in place to negotiate the terms of their employment for them. They're not mutually exclusive concepts as you seem to be arguing here and rights declarations are guidelines for government legislation not a code of conduct for private individuals and associations.

[Shady]

I'm a lot bigoted against incest, bestiality---a whole bunch of things homophobic people try to equate homosexuality with. But the court didn't "decide that gender doesn't matter". They decided that public opinion had shifted on the issue. You can try and shift public opinion further to include polygamy if you like. I figured that was the reason Romney was nominated last year.

How dare you equate polygamy with beastiality!!!! Outrage! Outrage! Outrage!

[BubberMiley]

How dare you equate polygamy with beastiality!!!! Outrage! Outrage! Outrage!

I never equated anything with anything. You're projecting again when your reading comprehension fails you. Nonetheless, I will accept your outrage without whining that it's curtailing my freedom of speech.

[carepov]

Yet the idea that different races might have genetic tenancies to live longer alludes you?

No I have already explained why, even if this is true, it is wrong and unreasonable to discriminate based on race.

What are you trying to say? That we should have marriage because it makes people live longer? Correlation != Causation.

No I am saying:

1. The state should recognize marriage, this is what people want, this is what people pay for themselves with user fees, and the fact that the state recognizes marriage does not violate the rights of the minority of people who are opposed in any way.

2. It is OK for companies (like life insurance providers) to offer services for married/common law partners at a discount.

3. All couples should have a choice to file one joint tax return or separate individual returns

Why do you keep talking about single vs married, you are making a false dichotomy. What about all the non-married couples (some of which are in happy relationships and may even have children)?

Sorry for the confusion, when I say "couples" or "married" I also include common law couples.

Where does it say that the state must define marriage and make it a state institution?

Edit: not that i give a damn what the UN thinks

Nowhere. Odd, normally when people don't give a damn about something, they don't provoke a discussion about it...

[-1=e^ipi]

Blah Blah Blah

Socialist-marxist idiocy and interpretation of economics

Blah Blah Blah

Look, if you want me to demolish your retarded understanding of economics then fine, but you will have to create another thread for that.

Regardless, the declaration of rights does not say that people should be forced to join unions.

I know, it says we should NOT be compelled to join them, but in many cases being in a union is mandatory for a job.

Anyway, I found it funny that according to the UN we all have a right to get paid while on holidays.

1. The state should recognize marriage, this is what people want

Not everyone wants state recognized marriage. Could you at least say 'some people' rather than 'people'?

and the fact that the state recognizes marriage does not violate the rights of the minority of people who are opposed in any way.

What about homosexuals that wish to marry but can't in the majority of the world where their marriage is not recognized? What about the minority that want polygamous marriage?

2. It is OK for companies (like life insurance providers) to offer services for married/common law partners at a discount.

Discrimination is okay, as long as you are on the benefiting end?

3. All couples should have a choice to file one joint tax return or separate individual returns

Why is this a should? Why not treat people as individuals?

Sorry for the confusion, when I say "couples" or "married" I also include common law couples.

The whole concept of common law couples is dumb. Marriage should be about consent. If two people never consented to marriage then they should be considered married.

Nowhere. Odd, normally when people don't give a damn about something, they don't provoke a discussion about it...

There is a difference about not giving a damn about what an organization thinks and giving a damn about the organization itself.

Edited January 14, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[carepov]

What about homosexuals that wish to marry but can't in the majority of the world where their marriage is not recognized? What about the minority that want polygamous marriage?

I am in favour of recognizing homosexual marriage.

You have to draw the line somewhere, and you cannot please every minority. A very tiny minority of people want a polygamous marriage and defining marriage as a union between two people is reasonable and even that is barely acceptable in todays society. If it ain't broke...

Discrimination is okay, as long as you are on the benefiting end?

Marriage discounts, senior's discounts, student discounts are not discrimination in my book.

Why is this a should? Why not treat people as individuals?

I already gave my reasons for supporting income splitting and asked you a few questions about it that you ignored.

The whole concept of common law couples is dumb. Marriage should be about consent. If two people never consented to marriage then they should be considered married.

They are not married, they are considered common law. You seem to be looking very hard for problems that do not exist.

[-1=e^ipi]

You have to draw the line somewhere, and you cannot please every minority. A very tiny minority of people want a polygamous marriage and defining marriage as a union between two people is reasonable and even that is barely acceptable in todays society. If it ain't broke...

Why not be consistent and take a position that says marriage is fine as long as it involves consenting individuals? Your position seems to be 'we should do what the majority wants; consistency and morality be damned'.

I already gave my reasons for supporting income splitting and asked you a few questions about it that you ignored.

Which ones are those?

They are not married, they are considered common law. You seem to be looking very hard for problems that do not exist.

You seem to be trying very hard to pretend that problems, which exist, do not exist.

[carepov]

Why not be consistent and take a position that says marriage is fine as long as it involves consenting individuals? Your position seems to be 'we should do what the majority wants; consistency and morality be damned'.

Yes I agree that "marriage is fine as long as it involves consenting individuals" - why would anyone disagree?

The question we were debating was: should the State recognize marriages?

Which ones are those?

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 thousands of dollars more in income tax compared to a family of $40,000 + $40,000 = $80,000?

Is income splitting of conglomerates discriminatory against single-industry businesses, small businesses, or self-employed people?

***

You seem to be trying very hard to pretend that problems, which exist, do not exist.

Marriage should be defined as a union between two people. In Canada - no problem.

Couples that want their union to be recognized by the state should have that service (and pay for it). In Canada - no problem.

Common-law couples should be taxed and treated no differently than married couples. In Canada - no problem.

Private business should be allowed to continue to offer discounts to seniors, students, married couples, families, low-income earners. This is not discrimination. In exceptional cases even discounts based on sex is OK (Ladies nights, free ballet lessons for boys, etc...). In Canada - no problem

Discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and personal beleifs should not be tolerated. In Canada - no problem

Where's the problem?

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes I agree that "marriage is fine as long as it involves consenting individuals" - why would anyone disagree?

So you agree that polygamy shouldn't be illegal?

Do corporations and joint-ownership companies have tax advantages compared to self-employed individuals? If so, is that "discriminatory" too?

I'm not familiar enough with that part of the tax code to give an informed opinion.

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 thousands of dollars more in income tax compared to a family of $40,000 + $40,000 = $80,000?

I already answered this. Both families should have to pay the same tax. However with marriage income splitting a non-married family earning $0 + $80,000 will pay more than a married family earning $0 + $80,000. Introduce a flat tax and these issues disappear.

Common-law couples should be taxed and treated no differently than married couples. In Canada - no problem.

If people don't consent to a marriage, they shouldn't be considered effectively married. Marriage should be about consent. This is a huge problem.

Private business should be allowed to continue to offer discounts to seniors, students, married couples, families, low-income earners. This is not discrimination.

It is discrimination. It is called price discrimination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

If you want to say it is justified that is one thing, but to pretend it is not discrimination is Orwellian.

Discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and personal beleifs should not be tolerated. In Canada - no problem

So a mosque shouldn't be able to discriminate against non-muslims when hiring an imam?

A university can't discriminate against creationists when hiring an evolutionary biologist?

A film company can't discriminate against non-black people when looking for an actor to play a black person?

The catholic church can't discriminate against gay priests?

[carepov]

So you agree that polygamy shouldn't be illegal?

Yes I agree.

I already answered this. Both families should have to pay the same tax. However with marriage income splitting a non-married family earning $0 + $80,000 will pay more than a married family earning $0 + $80,000. Introduce a flat tax and these issues disappear.

A flat tax may be a good idea but would introduce new issues...

If the choice is between status quo and status quo with income splitting, which would you support?

If people don't consent to a marriage, they shouldn't be considered effectively married. Marriage should be about consent. This is a huge problem.

I don't see how living as common-law is "considered effectively married". And even if it was I don't see this as a problem. And even if it was a problem surely it can't be a "huge problem".

It is discrimination. It is called price discrimination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

If you want to say it is justified that is one thing, but to pretend it is not discrimination is Orwellian.

So a mosque shouldn't be able to discriminate against non-muslims when hiring an imam?

A university can't discriminate against creationists when hiring an evolutionary biologist?

A film company can't discriminate against non-black people when looking for an actor to play a black person?

The catholic church can't discriminate against gay priests?

I am OK with price discrimination (within reasonable limits), I am against other discrimination (again within reasonable limits).

It is not discrimination to insist that the person hired is qualified for the job (Muslim imam, evolutionary biologists that understand evolution, actors)

Women and gays should be allowed to be priests, this is a problem best left for the Catholic Church to sort out.

[-1=e^ipi]

If the choice is between status quo and status quo with income splitting, which would you support?

I'm not sure, depends on the costs of implementation. Maybe without income splitting as I'm not married, so it would put greater tax burden on other people (jk).

I don't see how living as common-law is "considered effectively married". And even if it was I don't see this as a problem. And even if it was a problem surely it can't be a "huge problem".

Depends on where you live. I'm sure it is a big deal for some people. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/common-law-couples-as-good-as-married-in-b-c-1.1413551

Women and gays should be allowed to be priests, this is a problem best left for the Catholic Church to sort out.

Doesn't this sort of violate freedom of religion though?

[dre]

I certainly agree…….As long as it’s between consenting adults, why not?

In theory thats true, but in practice it results in a lot of child abuse, and the exil of males from their community. Its easy to say that these are consenting adults, but the children in these families arent.

Edited January 17, 2014 by dre

[segnosaur]

So, should polygamy be made legal?

I can think of several reasons why polygamy (or any sort of "multiple marriages") should probably not be made legal (at least not at this time)...

1) As it currently stands in practice, "Polygamy" often involves religious communities/cults where the women are pretty much "forced" into their current relationships.

Yes, it does suck for actual real "consenting" adults who want to have such relationships, but until we as a society have managed to eliminate all such abusive relationships, then we should be careful in extending our approval for such unions.

2) Implementation is far more complex than with "gay marriage".

Gay marriage was relatively simple to implement... its still a 'binary' marriage, regardless of whether its between a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. Multiple marriages would be extremely complex.... you would have a huge number of public and private sector laws, documents, etc. to revise; everything from tax forms, tax laws (e.g. income splitting), private insurance, etc. that would have to be revised.

3) At this point, there are far too many questions about how certain aspects of multiple marriage would be implemented.

For example, would all relationships be considered one-to-one, or would it be an official "group"? Could someone divorce from one person in the group but not others? What if person A and B were married, and A wanted to add a 3rd person but person B didn't? In a group marriage, who gets custody of the children in a breakup? These (and a ton of other issues) would have to be thought out.

Now, some here have argued that "Its not the government's business to define marriage", but the fact is, there is an benefit to society overall for a formal definition... it simplifies issues like child custody, immigration (or do you suggest eliminating "spousal visas"?).

Yes, some of this can be handled with things like legal contracts, but not everything (e.g. immigration). A formal 'government' definition of marriage just simplifies things.

[overthere]

So what does this have to do with unions? Everywhere they foster a strong middle class of consumers and demand creators. They benefit everyone in society by increasing the wealth that goes to the middle class. So, to say it in no uncertain terms, it is wrong to say that the interests of unions is counter to the interests of the nation.

There is no doubt that the interests of unions have coincided with the interests of society in general on more than one occasion.

But- in no uncertain terms- the actual purpose of labour unions is totally to promote the interests of its members.

To suggest otherwise is self serving and simply false.

I'm not served when boilermakers get large raises and increased benefits because there is a temporary local shortage of labour. I don't begrudge them their leverage, but I also don't tolerate the relentless whining when they don't have it. It's simply business, and it goes both ways.

The days when unions were a big push behind social change are gone.