How should Canada approach polygamy?

[White_Unifier]

1. It should prohibit both contracting and being in a polygamous marriage.

2. It should prohibit contracting a polygamous marriage but recognize those that are contracted abroad.

3. It should allow both contracting and being in a polygamous marriage.

4. Other answer.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Other answer: Let people form whatever common law unions that they wish to, barring including minors.

 

[White_Unifier]

Other answer: Let people form whatever common law unions that they wish to, barring including minors.

Interesting. I think Ron Paul once proposed something like that. In other words, the state would no longer recognize any marriage. If you want to marry, a marriage registrar from within your religious community might register it, and you'd be considered married within that religious community. But civilly, no one would be married since the state would just not recognize marriages.

I don't agree with that position, but I think I understand it and I can certainly see how libertarians might support it.

 

[Bar Sinister]

In a sense Western society has always had polygamous marriages. They simply were not called marriages. Cue Hugh Hefner.

The problem with polygamous systems that are actually sanctioned by law is that they can only exist in societies where women are treated as second class citizens and where a very large portion of the male population is deprived of marriage partners.

 

[justlooking]

and where a very large portion of the male population is deprived of marriage partners.

Which is why they are outlawed.
Large numbers of unmarried men are dangerous.

 

[B00Mer]

Other answer: Let people form whatever common law unions that they wish to, barring including minors.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Another Other Answer: Government should get out of the marriage business. No recognition of the status.

In a sense Western society has always had polygamous marriages. They simply were not called marriages. Cue Hugh Hefner.

Then they weren't marriages. Marriage is a term that carries certain legal rights and obligations. If the government ain't calling it marriage, yer just knockin' boots.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Interesting. I think Ron Paul once proposed something like that. In other words, the state would no longer recognize any marriage. If you want to marry, a marriage registrar from within your religious community might register it, and you'd be considered married within that religious community. But civilly, no one would be married since the state would just not recognize marriages.

I don't agree with that position, but I think I understand it and I can certainly see how libertarians might support it.

What business is it of the state, who we choose as partners? Thye State is not qualified to dictate what is a union and what is not. This is a holdover from our old, moralizing Christian past and has little actual relevance.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I thoroughly approve of marriage. It's an amazing revenue generator for my profession.

 

[JamesBondo]

I thoroughly approve of marriage. It's an amazing revenue generator for my profession.

You got my fiance's dress hemmed, yet?

 

[justlooking]

1. It should prohibit both contracting and being in a polygamous marriage.

2. It should prohibit contracting a polygamous marriage but recognize those that are contracted abroad.

3. It should allow both contracting and being in a polygamous marriage.

4. Other answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_the_United_Kingdom


Polygamous marriages legally performed in another country where the law allows it are legally recognised for the purposes of welfare benefits, but not for pension, immigration or citizenship purposes.[1][2] It is unofficially believed that there are up to 20,000 polygamous marriages in the Muslim community of the U.K.[3]

Probably what we will get in the future, there are probably already a couple thousand extra wives brought in as 'sisters'.

What business is it of the state, who we choose as partners? Thye State is not qualified to dictate what is a union and what is not. This is a holdover from our old, moralizing Christian past and has little actual relevance.

Income splitting, inheritance, marriage credits, child tax benefits, stats reps when you are in the hospital,
are all things that say they are the business of the State.

 

[White_Unifier]

In a sense Western society has always had polygamous marriages. They simply were not called marriages. Cue Hugh Hefner.

The problem with polygamous systems that are actually sanctioned by law is that they can only exist in societies where women are treated as second class citizens and where a very large portion of the male population is deprived of marriage partners.

In some societies, it's the other way around with a woman having multiple husbands. If we allowed both polyandry and polygyny, would that mean that a chain reaction could occur with a man marrying a woman who in turn marries another man who in turn marries another woman, etc? I'm not aware of any society where both polygyny and polyandry are practiced within the same nuclear family.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Which is why they are outlawed.
Large numbers of unmarried men are dangerous.

That was exactly my point.

Another Other Answer: Government should get out of the marriage business. No recognition of the status.



Then they weren't marriages. Marriage is a term that carries certain legal rights and obligations. If the government ain't calling it marriage, yer just knockin' boots.

I'm not so sure about that. Is a harem a marriage? People like Hefner found a legal loophole and used it to full advantage. While those young women were living in the Playboy Mansion they certainly were not looking for other partners.

 

[White_Unifier]

That was exactly my point.

But wouldn't polyandry balance out the polygyny?

to be clear, I morally oppose polygamy. I'm just saying though that if the only argument against it is the demographic balance of the sexes, then legalizing both polygyny and poyandry would probably solve that.

My main opposition to polygamy is that the polygamous spouse will not be able to treat all of his spouses equally, which could undermine unity within the family.

Now of course if my main opposition to polygamy is its instability, then obviously, while I might not to discourage it, I would also oppose forcibly tearing an already-established polygamous family apart since that would defeat the whole point of my opposition to it. That's why I favour prohibiting the contracting of a new polygamous marriage in Canada while still recognizing any that has been legally contracted abroad.

 

[MHz]

Some sort or reward as it probably saves on the heating bill in the winter.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Speciist!

 

[taxslave]

But wouldn't polyandry balance out the polygyny?

to be clear, I morally oppose polygamy. I'm just saying though that if the only argument against it is the demographic balance of the sexes, then legalizing both polygyny and poyandry would probably solve that.

My main opposition to polygamy is that the polygamous spouse will not be able to treat all of his spouses equally, which could undermine unity within the family.

Now of course if my main opposition to polygamy is its instability, then obviously, while I might not to discourage it, I would also oppose forcibly tearing an already-established polygamous family apart since that would defeat the whole point of my opposition to it. That's why I favour prohibiting the contracting of a new polygamous marriage in Canada while still recognizing any that has been legally contracted abroad.

I am not necessarily opposed to polygamy provided the family unit can support all the offspring without government assistance and there are no child"brides".Their sleeping araingements don't concern me.

 

[White_Unifier]

This video illustrates why I think being in a polygamous marriage should be legal:

[youtube]i-Pm5092a0c[/youtube]

Though I still think contracting a polygamous marriage in Canada should be banned simply since I'm aware of the harms that it can cause, I also believe that two wrongs don't make a right and that breaking up an already-established marriage (and even a polygamous one) could only cause more harm than it would solve.

 

[JamesBondo]

I could see that in certain situations, even if the polygomous relationship is illegal, it would be wrong not to recognize it. For example, a child that needs medical benefits, a wife that is attempting to claim insurance,etc.

 

[Walter]

Gubmint should get its nose out of all marriages involving adults.