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?

the CSA example isn't entirely fair as it did also save a lot of money in benefits (which was its original purpose after all). the papers don't mention that though as it spoils their black and white view of things.

not saying you cannot criticise, you are clearly incredibly well read and very learned and i think it is great you take the time to post such passionate and well informed posts.

anyway, i wholly agree with monkeytrousers.

and desiderata.

lulu, puss already discounted herself somewhat by saying she was not a scholar of Islam.

I am really cross about this. and when i find out that they're giving my tax money to support the fifty-nine year old born and bred in Portsmouth and his child bride who he met and married in the hills of Kentucky, I am going to leave this country and move to Lesbos.

I know what you mean Mercy - there is always a risk of that but we police the boards quite well, don't we

Anyway, I got to go now. Catch up later

Yes, I fear this argument is getting lost here. Polygamy in this country is illegal.

To make it legal for one culture, but for it to remain illegal to another, is plainly absurd.

If a culture/religion/race is allowed to be polygamous in the UK, then we must all be allowed it.

but other cultures aren't allowed to be polygamous in the UK, they are only allowed to keep their pre-existing marriages aren't they? That is a very different thing. Presumably there would be nothing to stop a white British man from marrying 2 women in a country that allowed it, and then returning to the UK. Or have I misunderstood?

i am not a scholar of judaism, but i would consider myself to know more about it, as it is my religion, than a lot of people

your posts veer between tongue in cheek and really cross. so it is hard to know how to respond.

lol Go on, have a google Pankhurst!

The guidance on Pension Credit states that a polygamous marriage is one in which "one of the parties is married to more than one person and the ceremony took place under the law of a country that allows polygamy".

It is actually neutral with regards to gender, race and religion.

i shall you know, monkeytrooz!

i AM really cross lulu. (i didn't discount Puss for not being a scholar, so you should take that up with her).

i really really want an equality message loud and clear from my government. and this is NOT it.

an equality of what? religion? races? sexes? or all?

so,if the papers start reporting about minority groups diddling the social and someone gets pissed off abou it,then the papers are talking bollox,yes?

but if the papers start reporting that 100k+ people are claiming incapacity and working on the side then that must be true and accurate?

incapacity benefit is being done away with in november,and will be replaced by a new benefit which will see thousands of people forced into seeking work whether they are capable of work or not.the government is trying to make sure nobody opposes this,and what better way than telling all the taxpayers that all these lazy idiots who cant be bothered to work arent going to have a choice in the matter?

why the hell should a man get money for a woman who isnt legally his partner in this country?

agree with monkeytrousers Hate to see misygony hiding behind religion.

Islamic law states that a man may have four wives, providing he treats them all equally. This new law (kept very quiet by the government as they knew it would be controversial), would seem to place Islamic law above UK law in this instance.

British law states that a man or woman who marries someone whilst still married to another will get a maximum prison sentence of seven years.

I fail to see the scales of justice at work here. And that's really all I'm interested in; that the UK applies its laws to all of its citizens equally.

But that's what I'm saying desi. the law does apply to all citizens equally, and if a muslim man married a second wife in the UK he would go to prison. equally, a British man who married twice in a country that allowed it would have the second marriage recognised here (though presumably not for immigration purposes).

also uk residents are not generally prosecuted in the uk for crimes which took place abroad, especially not if the crimes in question were not crimes in the country where they took place. That is (partly) why the papers were all so upset about those recent EU criminal justice proposals.

lulumama

i know many women of colour who would NOT appreciate a hierarchy of equalities

(and there have been others - ooh about 7 million in one famous and not so historic example - of religion persecuted DESPITE being the same colour and nationality as their sadistic persecutors. they might not be too keen on a hierarchy either.

but as a mum of dds, i started this post in relation to sexual equality.

I have reiterated it many times - poorly ennunciated or not - throughout this thread.
me23 has given a fabulous quote and when you see me with it on a tshirt in a high street near you, please do stop and give me a hug!

senorapancake,

are you saying that i can go and get hitched and bring back several men as long as i do it abroad in a country that lets me marry lots of men???

(gooogles furiously)

watch this space.....

i am sorry pankhurst, i do not understand your last point. please could you explain it again? thanks

Polygamous/polyamorous households are not automatically coercive (though some are). I don't actually see why the GOvernment shouldn't recognise them, be they Muslim, Mormon or alternative-lifestyle UK-born people - with a proviso that a household of adults pooling resources should perhaps get less per member than single people given that their outgoings will be a bit less per person. On the whole, a polyamorous household is less likely to need benefits for every individual as there will be more bodies available to care for young children or elderly parents or invalids. Also, and don't quite know the rules here, what about families where adult children live with their parents? Are the adult children entitled to benefits? How different is it, really (apart from who sleeps with whom, which is perhaps not anyone else's business?)

pankhurst, what are you going on about now? lulumama asked what the equality you referred to was, that's all.

are you comparinf the recognition marriages that would be illegal here but were legal when conducted to Nazi policy? that is a bit strong, you must admit.

pankhurst - well yes. but they might have problems with immigration.

hm...if you could just get married bigamish/polygamish in another country where this is allowed legally, doesn't that mean that anyone could do this and then return to a country where it usually wouldn't? And would that not just send a whole spiral off?

why would it send a spiral off, 3?

it's not illegal to have multiple partners, and it's certainly less hassle than going abroad to marry. and yet not many people do it. why is that?

sorry lulu, i mean when you asked which equality i was wanting the govt to talk about...

i was saying that some people - who might be both black and female - might have a hard time saying whether gender or race was most important.

or jewish people in the 1940's (white and german) might argue that religious was most important.

but that i was on about gender equality in this thread.

(i threw in a bit aimed at pan - because she criticised me for something to do with my vocab)

is that a bit less confused?