Canada could be the first country in the developed world to decriminalize polygamy.

In contractural law a partnership is defined as;

Yeah... totally ridiculous... nobody would ever be able to figure out a method of making that work...

 

lol

 

You're talking about legal protections between business owners. I concede, there probably would be a way to make marriages legally defined to split resources equitably.

But you, nor no one else has proposed one.

Let's say there is one. Excellent. I have no moral qualms accept for the fact that the only people interested in polygamy are Mormons and people from Islamic nations.

People I have no problems with. But certain individuals within these communities involved in polygamous relationships are involved in underage marriages with multiple wives from impoverished countries only to collect wifes as status symbols.

Which in my moral universe, collecting poor farm girls and marrying them, and living within private sharia court law where women have very few rights, is wicked. Importing that to Canada as a means of acceptance of ánother way of life' is...

well I don't know.

People who want to fuck around should be allowed to fuck around. Marriage is a bound of love, not status, or the lust you confuse for love.

 

Really? You need it spelled out to you in simple terms?

Try to follow along...

A marriage contract IS a business contract.

Simple enough for you?

As for your bullshit concerning sharia law... If you are so mentally incompetent that you think this has something to do with islam, then you are beyond the help I can provide... I suggest going to see a pharmacist and psychiatrist as quickly as possible.

Oh, and seems you have shown an inability to figure things out, let me spell this out...

I am neither a muslim, a mormon, or from an islamic nation. Nor am I 'collecting' impoverished farmgirls and I am definitely not involved with nor have I ever been involved with underage kids.

 

I stated in my last post that a marriage licence was a legal contract. I'm unsure how that eluded you.

Not did I imply that you were Mormon or Islamic, and I wouldn't have any problems if you were. My concern is of misogyny, that the wife collecting of polygamy implies in certain cultures.

You enforce your limited world views on others by insulting the intellect of anyone who disagrees with you; that's all your prior post entailed.

Enjoy, I have two jobs and am only interested in debate, not repertoire . I don't have the time.

You win.

 

This was what you said... there is no 'probably' it is already there.

You can read that now right? I would have thought you knew what it said, as you are the one who said it.

You whole post was offensive, THAT is why you had your LACK of intelligence insulted.

You also don't have the intelligence.

 

where did you get the idea that only mormons and muslims are interested in polygamy? grow up!

 

repertoire lmao

 

In marrying more multiple partners?

It's always men marrying multiple women, and it's always a business arrangement. It's never women marrying multiple men. Ever. The problem lies in the whole misogynistic relationship of the entire ordeal. Again, I'm talking about marriages, not polyandry.

I have never seen any other examples. Ever, on my travels or on national geographic, or reading in papers, or talking to people I've met.

And I have no moral qualms with polygamy in general. I don't give a fuck what people do. What I care about is the fact that polygamy is an ancient institution for woman collecting, and will likely still be used as that.

If it's not, I don't care.

 

you destroy your entire argument when you use words like "ever" or "never". there are in fact small societies in which women practice polyandry, so you're wrong there. polyandry is marriage! lol

you are very ignorant. it's evidenced in the fact you cited national geographic lol.

 

Polyamory rather. Malapropisms happen, you've made one in your last paragraph.

I however don't feel the need to demean your entire argument because of it. But since you're not interested, neither am I. It's 11 at here night here in Phnom Penh, and I have to work tomorrow.

 

I don't have a problem with polygamy, really. But it would get confusing. I can get that people can love more than one person, but consider this situation:

A man and woman marry. The man becomes interested in another woman (this is usually how it works out, as mentioned women rarely are the ones having multiple partners). So we'll assume that the first wife is fine with the husband having a second wife. They live harmoniously. Great. But what if one of the wives fall in love with someone else? Can they marry that man? Where would he stay? Would be he married to the other woman? If not (which I would assume to be the case) couldn't this situation cascade into a large web of marriages?

Of course all of these contracts then lead to far more complicated legal systems that need to be established to accommodate. Perhaps there is a way to make it work, but I don't know...

 

Once again... this is the what the media tells you and what you have been programmed from birth to think.

Stop for a moment, and don't look at this from your monogamous point of view... because that has nothing to do with polygamy...

I know people who are in triads, quads and totally open relationships... Some are are balanced in genders (in the case of some quads), others are not...

Beyond that though, there are more issues to consider then just the whole man/woman dynamic... There are some poly relationships that include all women, or all men... some include a man and two bi women, some are one woman and two bi men... some are 'V's, in which for example, one man may have two wives that aren't involved with each other beyond friends... same goes in reverse... Some are boxes, some are X's and so on and so forth...

Don't let the fact that the media and conventional society has been always focused on ONE form of polyamory make you think that is all there is.

And whatever you do, dont EVER think that the show 'Big Love' is about polygamy... it is about Mormon's.

 

I've never watched "Big Love". Most of what I know about polygamy is from research that I've done for a debate in high school, so I know a thing or two My main concern was more from a politacal/legal point of view.

But I think polygamy could work great! Really, I was just inquiring about a very specific situation. But if it works for that group of people, then FUCK YES: I'm all in.

 

No, not trying to be an ass about it.

Age is a funny one when it comes to discrimination. You could make the same argument with drinking age in countries/states that have it set at 21 - They can vote, even get conscripted to go off and fight a war at 18, but cant drink till 21, you could say that discriminates the group of 18 to 21 yr olds, but the law is set like that basically beacuse in that state they dont believe 20 yr olds are mature enough.

And similar kind of thinking with polygamy, if the main concern is (mostly) younger girls being exploited, setting the age ok maybe not 30 , say 25, or even 21 same as the drinking thing. If its about their protection welfare, I dont see what the difference is really.

But it may all just be too complicated in the end.


With all these kind of marriage issues its curious though, the main argument against seems to be filled with this vague notion of protecting the "sanctity of marriage", what does that even mean? Is it a case of everyone using such rhetoric cos they cant say the real reason out loud, or is it a whole bunch of people assuming their way is superior.............or nothing to do with marriage, but what marriage usually leads to - raising kids, which leads to a whole different set of concerns

 

This is not the same... It would be the same, IF you said a gay person couldn't drink til they were 30... or a female couldn't...

It isn't the age limit that is the problem, which is what you keep ignoring... it is making that age limit apply only to certain groups.

I know that you don't have a lot to do with activities that could lead to kids, so I'll help you out here...

Marriage doesn't lead to kids.... FUCKING does.

 

But if its 21 across the board for everyone, 21 or whatever age set for minimum poly age, then how is that differentiating certain groups?

 

Seriously, did you bump your head today or something?

If you set a minimum age for marriage... then there is no discrimination.

If you set one age for a monogamous marriage, and a different one for poly marriage, you are discriminating...

Just as it would be discrimination to say that straight people can marry at 21, but gay people have to wait til 30.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? That's not an insult, its a serious question...

Do you feel that gay people should have a different minimum age for marriage from straight people?

 

Not if it applies to everyone. I get what you mean, if someone wanting to go straight into a poly marriage, it would seem discrimanatory, but not by a legal definition, as the law would apply to everyone else. You could argue its discrimination based on age, but as I mentioned there are other presedences for that

Then you would be discriminating between groups

 

Its the same damned thing you silly bastard