to be a bit unhappy about Harems being supported by the taxpayer?

[pankhurst]

I am ardently against polygamy. Sorry. I think it's discourteous and (because usually male advantageous) sexist nonsense masquerading as religious right.

I found out that men with multiple wives under islam will have benefits for all of them.

AIBU to be concerned about this? If I were a muslim man on benefits and I wanted to, there would be NOTHING now to stop me bringing four wives in.

I don't want my children to grow up in a country where harems are even 1% of the population. I really don't. I would prefer more obstacles rather than making it easier.

Or did I miss the point somewhere? Help?

OK I am confused by this table as it suggests that this has been the case since at least April 2005.

Puss - no man could handle more than one of you

Right, in that case it is wrong. IMO if you are going to have this rule it should be applied to any polyamorous co-habiting relationship (test for relationship to be the same as for a monogamous co-habiting relationship). And I very strongly suspect that if such a household based on a polyamorous relationship formed in this country were to bring a case to the European Court of Human Rights they would say the same.

lol!

portandlemon HEADLINES very good!

but can i ask whether you might agree polygamy is sexist and undesirable?

i am not sure about the widows and orphans bit...coudl you explain that a bit more?

in the UK, under the benefits system, you don't have to marry a man in order to survive here, whereas in some countries you do.

so then why would they marry and THEN come here - why not just come here?

Ok, Nicky, no problem, as i said, it just ticks me off to think people get money for doing nothing when my dh slogs his arse off. I'm esp touchy when he's just gone off on nights. Perhaps I shouldn't have joined this thread!!
Going off to play netball now, will vent my annoyance on the court instead of getting het up on here

My understanding is that second and subequent wives are simply not recognised as wives under UK law

Re Mprmons, it is no longer permitted to bave more than one wide in the mainstreatm Church of the latter Day Saints. There are offshoots who still practice polygamy, but it is illegal in the state of Utah (as elsewhere in the States) 'Plig' communities as they are called are often clustered on the state boundary, and will cross over if they are about to get raided. They do a lot of cash in hand work to support their large, and very extended families

Right. So if the polygamous family receives income support, ALL of it is paid to the husband. .

If my DH and I got income support, would it get paid to him, or would we each get our own?

I don't want polygamy AT ALL.

(don't mind a bit of polyamoury but) don't want my taxes to support this sexist practice.

similarly, wouldn't want to support clitsnipping on the NHS - even if knobclopping were similarly and equally available.

I am with pankhurst on this (brave post by the way)
I do not care what colour, age, size you are,
I do not care if you were born in this country, I do not care if you want to move here and want to live in this country, I do not care what your religious beliefs are, I do not care if you don't want to work, I do not care if you want 15 children, I do not care if you want to have babies at the age of 12,
WHAT i DO CARE ABOUT IS I DO NOT WANT TO FUND YOU WITH MY TAXES.
But it would seem that makes me a bad person

lapinindetention - the table does look like it's been available since 2005.

and the pensions rates are extrordinary.

if i understand right, you could double your money with a couple of extra wives...

it's not looking good for the 'help pankhurst feel ok and comfortable about this piece of news' brigade.

no disrespect to the OP who appears to be asking a legit question, but aren't we getting this out of all proportion, as has been said?
I don't recall a thread about banks,oil companies, supermarkets etc making a gazillion quid per minute out of the people of this country ,and a demand that this be addressed by legislation.
No, Idon't wish to see polygamy recognised and financed in this country either >, and I do take everything quoted from the Daily Torygraph with a mine's worth of salt. They have been known to quote out of context.

And moreover, think of all the new sections we'd need on mn!! And the new threads we'd have in Dadsnet!!

In practice in much of the world polygyny and polyandry both manage to be pretty sexist -- polygyny tends to go along with a view of women as property and polyandry (which you'd think in principle would be the reverse) with a high rate of female infanticide (so that there "aren't enough women to go around" and sets of brothers end up sharing a wife).

But in theory I don't think that there's anything intrinsically sexist about a polyamorous household -- you probably want madamez on that, though.

Slightly off topic here, but I would like to give a bit of background to the whole thing -including the widow/orhpan thing.

With regards to marrying more than one woman - it does happen, I'm not denying this BUT Islamically, the men have to treat the women exactly equal - if he gives a ring to one wife, the other wife must receive one too - same value etc. In practise, this is pretty difficult and so polygamy is gradually on the decline in many Islamic countrys (with exceptions of course).

What must also be remembered, is that the practice of polygamy arose in the time of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) whereby there were more women than men and a lot of women, without a husband and children, were struggling financially and literally had no food etc. Remember, these were the times when the man was the source of money and stability for the family (Xenia would freak I'm sure!lol)

Therefore, for a man to take another wife and their children, it was seen as a very special and honoured duty. In Islam, the status of orphans is very important as the Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be Upon him) was an orphan too and so by taking on another woman's child and providing for that child, you are doing a very good thing.

Also, sometimes a man marries a woman and finds she is unable to have children...he loves her so much but he wants children. Rather than leave her, the option is there (with her agreement) to take a second wife (also with this woman's agreement) so that he can have a child.

There are lots of other reasons as well, but I'm not a scholar of Islam so I wouldn't put my point across very clearly...but I hope I've answered some questions about the practice in itself.

I don't agree however, with men claiming for more than one wife in a country where polygamy is not recognised, even if the marriage took place outside of the country. But having said that, I'm sure its such a small number and there are far more bigger benefit cheats on the go out there iyswim?

but kimi, you DO want to be in a society where there aren't widows and orphans starving in the street...

we are the envy of the world BECAUSE we have a taxpayer shared burden to support everyone.

i want my parents to have a decent pension and healthcare - granted they have worked evry day of their lives since sixteen to contribute, but if my mum had been SAHM, i would still want her to be safe and happy when she's too old to hold her own wee.

thanks puss.

ll - didn't it shouldn't be discussed at all. Appears V. interesting. just financially, if not culturally, all out of proportion to those other issues you allude to.

and I guess these days I open threads concerning immigration/foreigners etc with more than a little trepidation these days, sadly.

Why don't you understand the widows bit? It's pretty obvious.

Not every country has a welfare state. Therefore a man may have to marry his widowed SIL to look after her and her children/his nephews and nieces. Basic example I know but it is the 'ideal'

Ok so there may be approx. 1,000 men living in (legal) polygamous marriages in the UK. We don't know how many of those are claiming income support.

so nowadays, they could sponsor an orphan instead, rather than sleep with its mother to fund it's food...?

its'?

it's?

i'ts???

sorry

Sorry Puss, your explanation was a lot better than mine! (I got distracted by dc is my excuse!)

1000 men - so how many women??? It's not racist. It's a feminist issue!

No I wouldn;t support that - I would support help being given to those women to escape and if part of that is not allowing our liberal democracy to fund such misogynous practices then that's okay with me.

PH I want to pay my taxes and know it is going to the right people, the ones who need it, not the ones who think it is a life choice, or a free ride, and while trying to respect everyones beliefs I do not want to fund people with 4 wives.
If you live here then you need to abide by the rules of this land.