[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Or, in your obscure way, did you mean they should have no more rights than traditional couples (ie not common law) ie none?

Troll someone else Andy. There is no possible way you assume when I say 'the same' that I really mean 'none'.

Oh, yes there is. I've been caught before where I respond to the most commonly understood meaning, only to have you then outragedly declare that wasn't what you meant at all.

So what rights do couples composed of two people (not common law) have?

They have the right to certain Tax deductions, inherit property, visit their sick loved one in a hospital, right to access to any children produced by the marriage, rights to their Canada pension plan funds. . . To name a few.

[andyt]

Couples do? I don't think so. Again unless you mean common law. If so you should have said so. In that case we would be validating de facto polygamy, so then the push would be on to legalized full polygamy. I don't think it's a good idea to keep expanding these rights. Some of them should not be granted to 2 person couples either.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Consenting adults can live how they want but when it comes to government benefits tax credits, deductions etc, I'm ok with government drawing a line here. Unlike same sex marriage, this is actually a lifestyle choice and the government doesn't have to finance it.

Last I read on this topic the poly-whatever people are not looking for legalization so much as decriminalization.

They just don't want to be arrested for having a family that consists of, say, one man and four adult women. And they don't want to be subjected to the arbitrary whims of SJW social workers who raid such families and force the kids into foster care without any evidence of abuse past the fact that the family is poly.

[Thanos]

Read a sci-fi book once where this sort of thing had become common because in a resource-depleted world with massive endemic unemployment it had become too expensive for singles and couples to live by themselves. There were still the basic problems of human nature, mostly coming from the male ego. The one guy in the book who was living with three females absolutely flipped out when, thanks to his laziness, selfishness, and repetitive fuck-ups, the dominant female in the house wanted to bring in another adult male who actually had a sense of responsibility. Kind of comical in a way.

I doubt such maturity is possible right now. Seems more like something people who have watched way too much porn would be into, for the "sophistication" of it and all that tedious post-Hefner justification of sexual behaviour that is really quite immature and tawdry. More important it seems like something that cultists of the Muslim and Mormon variety would try to slip past in order to get some kind of stamp of approval from the state and society. That their kind of poly-relationships are massively abusive, constitute little more than slavery of the females, and start off as a form of sexual assault of children is something that keeps getting forgotten. Says something about a movement when the tip of the spear is a bunch of religious nutcases that define the term "anti-social".

Another major problem would be when children are brought into the multi-adult household. It probably won't take to long with multiple males of the "sophisticated" variety before someone starts dicking the kids and the other adults go into cover up mode over it to protect the "family". Degenerates will always protect their own, no matter how much damage gets done to the inevitable victims in their sick little experiment.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Couples do? I don't think so. Again unless you mean common law. If so you should have said so.

Your exclusion of 'common law' couples is irrelevant. Most dower rights apply to a common law couples as well. There was no need for me to say it.

http://ablawg.ca/2008/05/24/do-common-l ... er-rights/

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/D15.pdf

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

Read a sci-fi book once where this sort of thing had become common because in a resource-depleted and massive unemployment world it had become too expensive for singles and couples to live by themselves.

Throughout Robert Hienlien's books, he suggests that to colonize new planets it's in the families best interests to not put all the eggs in one basket. The new planet is inherently dangerous, and accidents happen. It would also be best for the gene pool to have multiple children with multiple people, and have a good safety net if one or more parents die accidentally or through encounters with unknown wildlife on the new planet.

[andyt]

It's pretty rare in Canada of the true polyamorous type. (Don't know about the Muslims).

Yes, this could get used by Muslims and Mormons to try to push for full polygamy. That's why I don't want to give these "couples" the same rights as people who are deemed married or de facto married. Didn't we already hear about Muslims in Canada getting welfare benefits based on being 'married'. And I know for sure the asshats in Bountiful were or are.

As for child abuse, really no more likely that with any step parent (ie father) where the likelihood is already substantially higher than with biological children.

[Thanos]

I'm fairly certain that a lot of these things that got thought up in the golden age of sci-fi were less about a grand future that had abandoned stale contemporary morality and more that the books were reflecting the authors perverted opinions and hidden lifestyle. L. Ron Hubbard was the most obvious and open one about it. A lot of the other old-school authors were just as bad. Apparently grandad-of-it-all Issac Asimov couldn't keep his hands to himself and pretty much expected convention and seminar organizers to provide him with a sweet young thing to fuck during his off-panel hours. It's not surprising really, considering that a lot of these guys were university professors in the 1950's and that's when formerly disgusting and scandalous intimate relationships between teachers and students started to get the stamp of approval from the school administrations.

[Lemmy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Throughout Robert Hienlien's books, he suggests that to colonize new planets it's in the families best interests to not put all the eggs in one basket. The new planet is inherently dangerous, and accidents happen. It would also be best for the gene pool to have multiple children with multiple people, and have a good safety net if one or more parents die accidentally or through encounters with unknown wildlife on the new planet.

There's a ring of historical truth in that. In the Stone Age, children really were raised by the community because no one knew who any particular child's father was. It's a "safety net" for a woman to have a partner who was good at foraging, one who was good at hunting, one who was a good teacher for kids, one who was a protector, etc.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's a "safety net" for a woman to have a partner who was good at foraging, one who was good at hunting, one who was a good teacher for kids, one who was a protector, etc.

Yeah, no. Going by our own Innuit, they still formed pair bonds, same as us. But the whole village supported each other, so shared in the results of the hunt. They didn't let one family starve while the next at well, because they realized it would tear their little society apart. (Bart et al would have gone absolutely berserk living in a community like that, and would have had to be shunned, so likely die) And, when men took long hunting trips and stayed at another village, they were given access to the women because it was recognized this would prevent inbreeding. But they didn't form units of multiple partners.

[Lemmy]

Yeah, yeah. We're talking about long before Innuit communities. Read "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" - by Yuval Noah Harari.

[BeaverFever]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Yeah, yeah. We're talking about long before Innuit communities. Read "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" - by Yuval Noah Harari.

Funny you mention that. I read it last summer, kept meaning to post on here about it. Great book!

[Lemmy]

Yes. In terms of its discussion of community sexuality among early peoples, one could rightly declare it a seminal work.

[DrCaleb]

*grooooan*

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Consenting adults can live how they want but when it comes to government benefits tax credits, deductions etc, I'm ok with government drawing a line here. Unlike same sex marriage, this is actually a lifestyle choice and the government doesn't have to finance it.

Last I read on this topic the poly-whatever people are not looking for legalization so much as decriminalization.

They just don't want to be arrested for having a family that consists of, say, one man and four adult women. And they don't want to be subjected to the arbitrary whims of SJW social workers who raid such families and force the kids into foster care without any evidence of abuse past the fact that the family is poly.

... Unless it's a Muslim with 4 wives, in which case the who lot gets the gas chamber, right?

Seriously I'm not aware of anyone kids being taken away because of poly-what'ever and AFAIK polyamoury is not criminalized -only bigamy. Where you do hear stories its with Mormons etc is because they're marrying underage girls.

Bigamy is an offence due to the fraudulent aspects: you've obtained a marriage certificate from the state entitling you and your spouse to special married privileges (tax deductions, survivor pension etc) but it is issued on the a basis that neither of you already have these privelages with other spouses So bigamy is fraud.