[Newsbot]

Title: Canadian polyamorists face unique legal challenges, research reveals
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2016-09-14 15:31:14
Canadian

[andyt]

$1:

Unlike polygamist families, which are typically faith-based, patriarchal arrangements where one man marries two or more women, polyamory is legal because no one is married to more than one person at the same time.

Polyamorists further distinguish themselves from polygamists by highlighting that their relationships are consensual and egalitarian.

"Nothing in the Criminal Code stops three or more consenting, informed adults from living together and engaging in a family relationship how and as they please," said Boyd.

Seems like bullshit to me, polygamy is illegal in Canada, so nobody can claim to be polygamously married. Just class all such relationships as polyamorous.

Have to admit tho, if the law starts treating these as legit relationships, with rights, then there would be a lot of pressure to move to full polygamy.

[2Cdo]

Who in their right mind would want multiple wives? It comes with multiple mother-in-laws and they'd all probably go thru PMS at the same time.

[BartSimpson]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Who in their right mind would want multiple wives?

[BartSimpson]

So as long as the polygamists don't claim to be married they'll be just fine? I can totally see how that's going to work out.

Funny, reminds me of what a polygamist woman once said (paraphrased) in reference to the married couple she was living with:

"If I say I'm his mistress and I live with him and his wife no one will say a thing. But if I say I'm also his wife and that he's committed to me and my children then they'll call the police."

[Public_Domain]

[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.

[Strutz]

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.

I agree with you on this.

I don't understand these types of relationships at all. To me you are either single and date and are intimate with different people or you are in a committed relationship with one person. I honestly can't imagine sharing the man in my life (that I'm married to or living with) with another woman (or women) and being ok with that. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way.

[andyt]

Who says you would be sharing your man with another woman?

I agree with Beaver. We should be looking at what deductions married couples get too. Like the married deduction.

[DrCaleb]

Strutz Strutz:

I don't understand these types of relationships at all. To me you are either single and date and are intimate with different people or you are in a committed relationship with one person. I honestly can't imagine sharing the man in my life (that I'm married to or living with) with another woman (or women) and being ok with that. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way.

It's a concept that's not new. To me, it's a good way to ensure that children are raised to adulthood. If each kid has a couple of Dads, and a couple of Moms, then the family could suffer the loss of one bread winner easier. There would still be several left, and no one becomes a single parent.

You wouldn't share your husband with just another woman, you might also share that other woman's husband as well. And his other male lover. There are no rules!

I'm kind of old fashioned too, but I've evolved to the point where I understand you don't choose who you fall in love with. So I make no judgments there. If someone wants to live in a relationship with two or more men and two or more women, so long as it's friendly and consensual, I don't care.

But they should have the same rights as other 'couples' as well.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

\

But they should have the same rights as other 'couples' as well.

Well, what rights do "couples" have? Do you mean common law, which is de facto marriage? Should a spouse with 6 partners be able to claim income deductions for all of them? How about welfare benefits - I'm pretty sure we have Muslims in Canada doing this and getting them. How about pensions - do the 5 survivors each get a pension supplement, as a widow does now? How to sort out custody in "divorce" and divorce could look pretty messy with 6 people re-arranging their relationship.

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

[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Who in their right mind would want multiple wives?

You can just smell the herpes and chlamydia coming off of that photo.

[Thanos]

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.

Got that right.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

\

But they should have the same rights as other 'couples' as well.

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'.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

\

But they should have the same rights as other 'couples' as well.

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?