Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am a libertarian and I see a lot of problems with it. Countries with polygamous marriages are not countries in which one sees a lot of free choice or gender equality. I also suspect that the spouses and dependent of such marriages would become big time leeches on our already over generous social programs.

First is economic. The entire government system of social funding would have to be overhauled CPP, Child tax benefits, tax laws, welfare,divorce laws, inheritance laws, widow and orphan benefits to name a few. All of these programs are designed on the assumption of two parents. For example if the male breadwinner dies and leaves 3 wives and twelve kids and the government benefit is $300 per month - does each wife get $300 or $100. Should the husband have to pay higher premiums because of his choice to have 3 spousal dependents. Same for private pension plans and life insurance. Would the lifetime annuity be until the last (and much younger wife) died or the oldest? Should the premiums be signifigantly higher or would that be a charter challenge? During divorce, how would the family assets be split, alimony, child support etc. It would be a legal nightmare.

The studies on the imbalance of power against women in polygamous marriages is well documented. Things like jealousy, sibling rivalry, abuse etc. But what about the surplus males that can not find spouses. This creates social instability. Both China and India are realizing the future problems due to too many men without mates. Will violence and crime increase? Within US polygamous communities, young males have been thrown out of the community because they are competition to the alpha males. It is as unfair to them as for the women that have very little power in a polygamous relationship.

Are any countries that embrace multiple marriages in the developed world. As, I see it, monogamous marriage or at least serial monogamy has probably won out (in terms of success) for many reasons.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mltoryblue wrote:
Everytone here seems to only be thinking about cvivil liberties and the charter, what about the children?

How does a kid with a mom and a dad who has 7 other wives grow up to be normal. Some of these kids in Bountiful have like 20-30 step siblings.

What about the gene pool as well? This all amounts to incest in the end. I think if scientists started studying the gene pools in these places they would discover some very disturbing things

The government doesn't allow you to marry your cousin, so why should polygamy be legal.
Only your first cousins, that would be sick. You can still marry your hot second and third cousins...
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Casper

No problem with defined contribution pension plans, which is what you get if you work in the private sector. Here, the cost to the company is defined, the contribute some % of your pay every month. There is no guarantee of any particular amount on retirement. Almost no one gets defined benefit pension packages anymore, only MPs. These are the ones that promise to pay $X every month in perpetuity to you, and to your surviving spouse.

As for multiple marriage, it will be as predicted during the SSM debate. You remember that, when all the Liberals and Dippers were saying that there was no slippery slope? I for one welcome our new polygamous overlords.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
If three consenting adults want to form a union I don't understand why libertarians would object to it.


To further that thought (in my own mind), I would go so far as to suggest why a libertarian would support a government sanctioned marriage period? Shouldn't the government stay out of marriage? Is there any reason why the government should be intruding upon a religious ceremony, from a Libertarian standpoint?
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote
Quote:
Why wouldn't it be beneficial to the three people who willfully entered into the union?


I think they wrote a book about that called Joey has 2 dad's and One Mom. I just don't want them teaching my Kid about this deviation in school :lol:
casper35





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7Reputation: 25.7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, i understand defined contribution pension plans and RRSP's. This instance though is regarding the retirement period. One of the choices available is annuities in which the payments remain until the death of the last member of the couple. The financial institutions base their payout on two people. If there were say 4 member in the marriage, would the institutions be allowed to reduce payments or restrict it to two people or would they face a court challenge on discrimination.

Our laws are just not set up for multiple partner marriages. I would favor having the state out of the marriage business and all of the benefits that flow from that status before rewriting everything to accommodate polygamy. Now that would be libertarian ..... but not conservative.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my defined contribution pension, the payments only last until the money runs out. Does nor matter how few payments, or how long you live. You must have a better pension than me.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
To further that thought (in my own mind), I would go so far as to suggest why a libertarian would support a government sanctioned marriage period? Shouldn't the government stay out of marriage? Is there any reason why the government should be intruding upon a religious ceremony, from a Libertarian standpoint?

Marriage isn't a religious institution; it's a government institution. Marriage licences are issued by the government and that's always been the case since Canada became a dominion. Religions can bless and sanctify marriage for those faithful who feel that is beneficial but two atheists can be married in a completely non-religious ceremony and they're every bit as hitched as a church wedding.

I suspect you're mixing libertarianism (small government with restricted mandate) with anarchism (no government) but there are significant differences.

-Mac
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Marriage licences are issued by the government and that's always been the case since Canada became a dominion.


If Bans are read at church you don't need a license.

Plus it saved me 100 semolions. :wink:
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
If three consenting adults want to form a union I don't understand why libertarians would object to it.
Because it hurts society. Look at the societies where it is allowed.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Craig wrote:
If three consenting adults want to form a union I don't understand why libertarians would object to it.
Because it hurts society. Look at the societies where it is allowed.


This coming from the guy who thinks all guns should be legal. Why is it okay for big brother to tell three consenting adults that they can't do something they want to do?
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Bleatmop wrote:
To further that thought (in my own mind), I would go so far as to suggest why a libertarian would support a government sanctioned marriage period? Shouldn't the government stay out of marriage? Is there any reason why the government should be intruding upon a religious ceremony, from a Libertarian standpoint?

Marriage isn't a religious institution; it's a government institution. Marriage licences are issued by the government and that's always been the case since Canada became a dominion. Religions can bless and sanctify marriage for those faithful who feel that is beneficial but two atheists can be married in a completely non-religious ceremony and they're every bit as hitched as a church wedding.

I suspect you're mixing libertarianism (small government with restricted mandate) with anarchism (no government) but there are significant differences.

-Mac


I suspect that I am not mixing up Anarchism and Liberalism. I understand both concepts. I feel that it is consistent with Libertarian values that no contract should need be sanctioned by the state. Enforced perhaps, but not sanctioned. However, this does not mean that I believe that a Libertarian view would opt for no government, but more just the need to stay out of private affairs. It is a statist position to suggest that the State needs to sanction a contract before it can be entered. Therefore, if a marriage is a contract between people, then the state would have no right to decide who enters a contract, or how many people enter a contract.

I did some research and came across this article by Richard A. Epstein, a noted libertarian. Here are some highlights.

Quote:
But since the state bans polygamy, some ask, why not also ban same sex marriages? Turn the question around, however: Why ban the former, especially by constitutional amendment, when agreed to by all parties? Incest is a different matter, with the high dangers from inbreeding. And people and poodles can't tie the knot because one half in the relationship (some would say the better half) lacks the capacity to enter into a contract.


Quote:
Restore individual liberty to center stage, and this state restriction on same-sex marriages falls to the ground with the same speed as the full panoply of employment regulations, and the extension of antidiscrimination laws into ordinary social and religious affairs.


On an interesting side not, when I googled libertarian marriage, one of my previous posts is the describing text for the link that leads to this page. I thought that was kinda cool, although it is completely irrelevant to this debate. I should also point out that I don't agree with this Libertarian standpoint, I was just asking (in an ineffective way)
Quote:
why a libertarian would support a government sanctioned marriage period?
of this boards libertarians.
Lar_drewstar





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Reputation: 19.8Reputation: 19.8
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Possibly another reason its illegal is generally there has been, from what Ive heard anyway girls underage being married off especially in some cults in the united states.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Incest is a different matter, with the high dangers from inbreeding.


The slippery slope will lead to polygamy and eventually close-familial marriages.

The same-sex marriage debate removed the requirement that a marriage be conjugated (potentially resulting in children). Traditionally marriage was meant to provide a stable situation for children and clear inheritance rights; however, this aspect of marriage is no longer required or important now that same-sex marriage is allowed.

Following through on this logic, if the only reason to prevent two siblings from marrying is that there is a greater chance of birth defects resulting from potential offspring in that marriage, then why would we deny two brothers or two sisters from marrying? Or a sibling couple that are incapable of reproducing (one or both are sterile, or undergo sterilization as a condition of marriage)?

Following through on the reasoning that the state can disallow marriage based on the potential for birth defects in children resulting from that marriage; does that mean the state has the right to prevent other couples from having children where there is an increased risk of birth defects/health problems in children resulting from that marriage?

For example, if we can tell a brother and sister not to marry because of possible birth defects, can we tell two disabled people not to marry if there is an increased chance that any resulting children would inherit the disability?

In the future, with genetic engineering, it may be possible to reverse any possible defects due to incest. If the health complications are no longer a factor should we still deny them the right to marry?

In some cultures, close familial marriages are acceptable, in our multicultural society is it acceptable to impose our western-Judeo-Christian morals onto these people? Is it a violation of their religious rights?

Lastly, does disqualifying the marriage really prevent the birth defects? The couple can still reproduce without a marriage certificate. If the solution to the perceived problem doesnt' work, is it still enforceable?

This is all just a charter challenge away folks.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's rather thought provoking - especially the considerations regarding the future ability to 'undo' genetic defects.

Quote:
If the solution to the perceived problem doesnt' work, is it still enforceable?

There is still an incest law in the Criminal Code, barring sexual intercourse (straight or gay) between immediate family members. Note that this includes only biological mothers, father, brothers, and sisters.

First cousins can legally marry in Canada, and other legal considerations aside, sexual relations with relatives with one degree of seperation (uncles,aunts,cousins) are technically permissable. Canada has some of the most 'liberal' incest laws in the industrialized world.

However, this has rarely become an issue because the incest taboo is said to be the 'universal taboo' - there is no known ethnoculture in our past or present where incest was not deviant, if not criminal. Research indicates that children develop this 'sexual aversion' (for lack of a better term) attached to any family members that they are raised with from a young age, regardless of biological relation.

So, the incest taboo seems to an inborn human trait, rather than a cultural phenomenon. This also means that biological relatives unaware of their shared ancestry do not develop the taboo, which results in situations like this: Seperated Twins Anull Marriage
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Why is poligamy illegal?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB