Legalized prostitution and plural marriages coming soon

[Renegade]

Forget about getting married for sex or pro-creating.No one says that has to happen.

Let's talk about another aspect of plural/incestual marriage.

If I marry my elderly father and my mother and her old friend,the disabled neighbour,then all of them could benefit from all my personal benefits that I get from work,dental,extra health,personal programs allowable for the "spouse",I would even get time extra time off to take care of any of my "spouses" when required.

How will the law take care of this kind of "rights"?

I expect just the same way as any other program which has the potential to cause significant unintentded consequences. Additonal restrictions on benefit claims will be put on. An example of such a restriction: Only one named spouse can claim benefits.

In the current system you can still have any number of people claiming benefits under your plan. For example you can adopt an unlimited number of disabled children. What stops you from doing so?

[capricorn]

In the current system you can still have any number of people claiming benefits under your plan. For example you can adopt an unlimited number of disabled children. What stops you from doing so?

Money? When you adopt, you pay for the upbringing. Sadly, a sacrifice not too many are willing to make.

My sister is poor. If I could, I would marry her to ensure she gets on my medical plan, gets my CPP survivor benefits, death benefits etc. If this was allowed to happen the floodgates would open and it would bankrupt the CPP.

[Canuck E Stan]

Money? When you adopt, you pay for the upbringing. Sadly, a sacrifice not too many are willing to make.

My sister is poor. If I could, I would marry her to ensure she gets on my medical plan, gets my CPP survivor benefits, death benefits etc. If this was allowed to happen the floodgates would open and it would bankrupt the CPP.

That was sort of my point.

What would happen in the case of immigrants marrying multiple people in order to bring them into the country?

The rights of these individuals wanting to have multiple or incestuous marriages would have to be protected by law, how would that occur without refusing them their right to marry?

[cybercoma]

So what about the brother & sisteer that want to get married, or the grandmother and grandson, or man that wants to marry his dog. Where does it stop?? It doesn't. You cannot have order and scocial norms with this endless "progressive" BS. Anything goes, society looses....

What about the brother & sister or the grandmother and grandson, given that these people are legal consenting adults? The example of beastiality is moot, since a dog is not a legal consenting person by law.

[cybercoma]

Forget about getting married for sex or pro-creating.No one says that has to happen.

Let's talk about another aspect of plural/incestual marriage.

If I marry my elderly father and my mother and her old friend,the disabled neighbour,then all of them could benefit from all my personal benefits that I get from work,dental,extra health,personal programs allowable for the "spouse",I would even get time extra time off to take care of any of my "spouses" when required.

How will the law take care of this kind of "rights"?

The law doesn't have to. Insurance providers can stipulate who is and is not covered under their plans. An employer doesn't have to give you benefits and they determine what benefits, if any, they're going to provide.

[capricorn]

The law doesn't have to. Insurance providers can stipulate who is and is not covered under their plans. An employer doesn't have to give you benefits and they determine what benefits, if any, they're going to provide.

Until the insurance provider and/or employer is hauled before a Human Rights Tribunal. These days, anything is possible.

[cybercoma]

Until the insurance provider and/or employer is hauled before a Human Rights Tribunal. These days, anything is possible.

Nonsense. All companies would likely stop providing insurance for all types of spouses, if that were the case. People can complain about it all they want, but most families have both adults working, so there really is less of a need now )than att any other time in history) for a single employee's benefits to cover their spouse as well.

I do fall into the exception, since my wife is considered self-employed, she gets no benefits; however, she can buy third-party insurance if she wasn't covered by my benefits. I think to stop the type of cheating that you were referring to, this is fair and acceptable.

I do feel dependents should always be covered though. Your insurance should cover your children, since they are too young to work.

Edited August 17, 2007 by cybercoma

[Renegade]

Money? When you adopt, you pay for the upbringing. Sadly, a sacrifice not too many are willing to make.

Yes, that is precisely why I ask the question. The fact is there is a built-in personal financial disincentive to adopting children just to allow them to take advantage of your benefits. Because of this disincentive, few if any will do it, that means the benefits provider already has a way to curtail abuse of the system. The same would be true of marriage.

My sister is poor. If I could, I would marry her to ensure she gets on my medical plan, gets my CPP survivor benefits, death benefits etc. If this was allowed to happen the floodgates would open and it would bankrupt the CPP.

If the financial disincentive was not already strong enough to prevent undue claims on benefits, then restrictions would need to be put on payouts. For example for CPP, that the benefit is capped and devided amoung spouses or other such restriction.

[Renegade]

That was sort of my point.

What would happen in the case of immigrants marrying multiple people in order to bring them into the country?

The rights of these individuals wanting to have multiple or incestuous marriages would have to be protected by law, how would that occur without refusing them their right to marry?

I think someone should have the fiscal capacity to support a spouse in order to sponsor them as an immigrant into the country and undertake to support that person for life. This should be true for one spouse or for many. Very few will have the fiscal capacity to do so, and will want to do so just to subvert the system.

In any case, virtually all people have psychological inhibtions to incest, so they are not likely to undertake incestous marrages except to subvert the system. Even today immigration has as set of processes in place to detect and refuse immigration to what they consider fradulent marriages.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Renegade

[old_bold&cold]

Even in countries where multiple marriages are allowed there has always been a special status to the principal wife or first wife. All other wives have had less standing and are therefore only supported by the husband after the needs to the first wife have been met. So it would easily be able to use this same policy here in Canada for any benefits that the Husband would have from the government etc.

Now I personally can not see having more then one wife, as liek most normal Canadian women, she feels it her god given right to lett me know exactly what I do wrong in just about anything I do that she is dsipleased with. Now do not get me wrong I love her, but why would I ever take number 2 wife so this will then happen in stereo? I feel no need to ever have more then one wife and companion. But that does not mean my neighbour feels the same way, and as long as he can affort to do so and support the extra wives, I have no problem with him doing so.

As far as legalized prostitution goes, I am all for it. It can be made as a hospitality industry and with proper medical check ups and health controls, it can even benefit society, thru taxes and tourism. Just see Amsterdam and the tourists who all want to walk thru the red light district just to see, and I am sure some may even sneak back on their own to make use of the services. Hell it is now one of the things promoted by the tourist industry. Many other european countries have this as well. It is open, honest and made as healthy as possible. Maybe it would even give outlets to some of those borderline sex offenders, so they will not feel the need to find innocent people to do their deeds, when you probably could find a sex worker willing and able to perform these tasks at a price.

[Bonam]

Now I personally can not see having more then one wife, as liek most normal Canadian women, she feels it her god given right to lett me know exactly what I do wrong in just about anything I do that she is dsipleased with. Now do not get me wrong I love her, but why would I ever take number 2 wife so this will then happen in stereo?

Well if you have two, then they'll be competing for the position of principle wife, and will be trying to impress you rather than critiscize you ;p

[Black Dog]

Marriage has been between man & woman for thousands of years, in most societies and religions, there is no need at all to change it now.

Hmm....

Marriage has been between man & several women for thousands of years, in most societies and religions...

fix'd!

[geoffrey]

Good fix Black Dog. And your right. Though I certainly hope your not using that to defend polygamy.

The bottom line is that polygamy, in it's current state, is entirely about coercion and abuse. Historical precendent is really irrelevant when your dealing with the basic human rights of women and children.

[Higgly]

What is wrong with prostitution? If the woman freely choses to do it, then it's none of our business. Hell, there are men who chose to go crab fishing in Alaska when the death toll in that line of work is horrendous. You want to get unctious, then take on the crab fishers.

[Renegade]

Good fix Black Dog. And your right. Though I certainly hope your not using that to defend polygamy.

The bottom line is that polygamy, in it's current state, is entirely about coercion and abuse. Historical precendent is really irrelevant when your dealing with the basic human rights of women and children.

What you refer to as "it's current state" is only one sect's behaviour. It doesn't preclude that polygamy can be a voluntary arrangement between people.

I'm surprised at your inconsistent postion. You usually are on the side of govrnment non-intervention in free associations between consenting adults. Why are you willing to let government stop a type of consentual association rather than advocate that government intervene to stop behavoiur. IOW, the government can ban abuse and coercion in any form, without banning polygamy.

[geoffrey]

IOW, the government can ban abuse and coercion in any form, without banning polygamy.

Idealistically, yes. Pragmatically, it's not so easy.

I think it's best to err on the side of caution when dealing with sexually exploited children. That is the face of polygamy in Canada today. A bunch of rednecks that pawn off their daughters at 14 to men three or four times their age. That's not consenting behavior of any kind. It's coercion and violence.

[Renegade]

I think it's best to err on the side of caution when dealing with sexually exploited children. That is the face of polygamy in Canada today. A bunch of rednecks that pawn off their daughters at 14 to men three or four times their age. That's not consenting behavior of any kind. It's coercion and violence.

Yes you are correct it is coercion, however pragmatically the government best chance of preventing the practice is to prohibit child brides, even with parental approval. Child brides would present the same coercion even if the male married only one.

[cybercoma]

Ummmm...you think bro and sis can have children that don't put the gene pool at risk?

You don't have to have kids to be able to marry...

[cybercoma]

double post, sorry.

Edited August 21, 2007 by cybercoma

[Topaz]

I don't think it will happen, because MOST women wouldn't go for it. I can see some teenage getting angry at parent and doing it "to teach her parent a lesson" which the daughter would find out, SHE is the one, learning a lesson. The murder rate would probably go up and so, I just don't see it happening.

[geoffrey]

Yes you are correct it is coercion, however pragmatically the government best chance of preventing the practice is to prohibit child brides, even with parental approval. Child brides would present the same coercion even if the male married only one.

Fair. I agree.

Do you think even adults that grow up in a brainwashed society though can make a reasonable choice to get hitched at 18? Or do we outlaw these societies as well? That's a tough thing to enforce... when is it religion and when is it harmful? That's a much greyer area and one that will likely lead to more infringement on freedom than polygamy.

The bottom line is that a ban harms very few,

I don't think it will happen, because MOST women wouldn't go for it. I can see some teenage getting angry at parent and doing it "to teach her parent a lesson" which the daughter would find out, SHE is the one, learning a lesson. The murder rate would probably go up and so, I just don't see it happening.

Kids would marry into polygamy to piss off their parents? Whaaa??

[Renegade]

Do you think even adults that grow up in a brainwashed society though can make a reasonable choice to get hitched at 18? Or do we outlaw these societies as well?

Yes, we can and must make the presumption that they make reasonable choices. To do otherwise would lead down the path of the government making judgements about peoples upbringing and based upon their upbringing determine what that adult is capable or incapable of making reasonable decisions.

Let's say I was abused as a child, and the government decides based upon my past I can't make reasonable decsions as a parent, so it disallows me from being a parent. Would you say that is a justified course of action?

That's a tough thing to enforce... when is it religion and when is it harmful? That's a much greyer area and one that will likely lead to more infringement on freedom than polygamy.

Exactly. By going down the path of probihition the government is infringing on people's freedom to decide for themselves.

The bottom line is that a ban harms very few,

It harms everyone because it sets a precedent that the government is free to intervene in consentual behaviour.