Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits

[Amish Nick_SC]

Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

(...)

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".

"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.

"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."

Read the rest here.] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml) So basically Britain has now gone ahead and said polygamy is now OK and legal now in the UK. Although Britain will now allow such marriages to take place in the UK. But this does not prevent such marriages to occur out side the UK, then move back or too the UK after the marriages have taken place.

So the question is, should polygamy be made legal in this case much as the current government of Brittan has? Is this in a way pandering to one group of people as being brought up.

[~Charlotte~]

Well, if the people involved in the marriage are happy, then it's fine. But why they are eligible for extra welfare benefits is beyond me - if you can't afford to support your extra wives, don't get anymore!

[LOZOTRON]

so we as tax payers are paying for someone elses religion that we dont even conform to.
if they cant afford to keep thier wives, then dont have them. same principle with children really.

it should'nt be allowed. if they don't like our laws then sod off back to their own country where they dont get any form of benifit at all and no free health care. why are they even complaining.

[annachibi]

Huh. That's very weird. I don't see why Britain would do that. I mean, why should someone with an extra wife get extra benefits? You don't get benefits for having an ex live in your house with you and your wife. Just doesn't make much sense.

[iampinkstar_SC]

They are trying to react to the changing needs of its citizens but at the same time p***ing a lot of other citizens off in the process. I am on benefits and they're not paying me enough to cover my rent so im struggling to find the rest of the money each month. I would need to work 30+ hours at minimum wage before its better to come off the benefits than it would be to stay on them.

Giving people more money is only going to cause more long term problems then it solves, with all those wives surely they'd be earning loads?

[crocobaura]

This multiple wife thing AND benfits sounds a bit unfair to me. A guy is supposed to have money to be able to marry more than one wife, and should one of them die, he get the benefits. However, if he dies, all his wifes get to divide the benefits from him. Not very fair, if you ask me, especially since these women don't usually have jobs of their own.

[Lollipop_Girl]

so we as tax payers are paying for someone elses religion that we dont even conform to.
if they cant afford to keep thier wives, then dont have them. same principle with children really.

it should'nt be allowed. if they don't like our laws then sod off back to their own country where they dont get any form of benifit at all and no free health care. why are they even complaining.

I agree with this. I don't think we should have to pay for someone to have several wives. if their religion permits it then they should simply only have multiple wives if they can afford to support them. We shouldn't be supporting them for these people.

[Doddibot]

I'm just going to make a comment on a particular verse of the Qu'ran as it relates to this debate. This is from Surat An-Nisa:

4:3 And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice.
Therefore, I say that if a man actually needs income support to live with more than one wife in Britain, he shouldn't have more than one wife. To paraphrase, if he cannot support so many women, then he should have only one wife.

There should be no extra benefits such arrangements.

[Black_Barook!]

Therefore, I say that if a man actually needs income support to live with more than one wife in Britain, he shouldn't have more than one wife. To paraphrase, if he cannot support so many women, then he should have only one wife.

Hey you stole my words! Give them back! =D In fact the notion of marrying more then once was to take care of the widowed in war times...which isn't the case here.

What about non-Muslims? Or women with multipale husbands. Or men with multipale husbands. Or women with multipale wives? (You guys have gay marriage correct?)

[Netnamap]

having multiple wives does not seem bad but might actually be bad . Because having multiple wives means disloyalty towards your first wife , unless she allows it that's a different story . But normal human females wouldn't be so stupid right ? If not then the number of men having multiple wives would not be as few as today . and black_barook , i wouldn't wanna imagine a woman with multiple husbands lol

[LOZOTRON]

What about non-Muslims? Or women with multipale husbands. Or men with multipale husbands. Or women with multipale wives? (You guys have gay marriage correct?)

in nearly all of the religions you can't have multiple husbands or wives. its against the law in the form of bigamy.

and another thing, i think the majority of the benefits would go straight in the husbands pocket. muslim women don't have any right rights in their faith/country. they don't get treated as equals.

[Black_Barook!]

Muslim women don't have any right rights in their faith/country. they don't get treated as equals.

I'd like you to say that to Muslim women in Kuwait, Qatar, Emirites. They'd laugh you out of the region. Just becasue a few nations (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) treat their women bad doesn't mean it's in Islam. Also don't get all high and might on us, you treated your women like cows.

Why is it against the law for more then two people to get married?

[crocobaura]

I'd like you to say that to Muslim women in Kuwait, Qatar, Emirites. They'd laugh you out of the region. Just becasue a few nations (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) treat their women bad doesn't mean it's in Islam. Also don't get all high and might on us, you treated your women like cows.

Why is it against the law for more then two people to get married?


Muslim women don't have the right to marry more than one man. So, they don't have same rights as men. Just because you don't beat them for going out by themselves or for wearing lacy undies, doesn't mean they enjoy same rights as men, or that they have same opportunities. All religious issues aside, I find it degrading to be forced to share your husband with 2-3 other women and compete for his attention. If he wants more women in his life, he should by all means stay single. And if he wants to make a display of his wealth he might as well buy another Mercedes or house, not another wife.

[Doddibot]

find it degrading to be forced to share your husband with 2-3 other women and compete for his attention.
Ok, forcing people to stay in a marriage that makes a member feel degrading is bad. But what if none of the wives feel degraded at all? Is it still wrong?

[urisStar]

Ok, forcing people to stay in a marriage that makes a member feel degrading is bad. But what if none of the wives feel degraded at all? Is it still wrong?

Yes it is bad if they can’t afford to support themselves and are in need of the government help in order to eat. :blink:

[hszmv]

In Islam, this is an allowed practice for men to support women who were left widowed by some means. The man is, in essance, making a donation of family funds to this woman and possible children, which is one of five essential parts of the Islam faith. But you shouldn't marry more then you can afford.

While I'm not protesting this practice, I do disagree with government support, as it undermines why this practice was put into place.

[Zaggytiddies]

Ok, forcing people to stay in a marriage that makes a member feel degrading is bad. But what if none of the wives feel degraded at all? Is it still wrong?

No...lol as long as it's their personal decision. Hey if we're not going to give gay people benefits when they marry why should some people get multiple benefits?

[crocobaura]

Ok, forcing people to stay in a marriage that makes a member feel degrading is bad. But what if none of the wives feel degraded at all? Is it still wrong?

I doubt that women raised with the notion that one day they may become second wife to someone, actually feel degraded by the thought of it. They may even view it as totally right.

In Islam, this is an allowed practice for men to support women who were left widowed by some means. The man is, in essance, making a donation of family funds to this woman and possible children, which is one of five essential parts of the Islam faith. But you shouldn't marry more then you can afford.

While I'm not protesting this practice, I do disagree with government support, as it undermines why this practice was put into place.

Yeah, then why is it that the second wife is usually much younger than the first one and she almost never has children of her own? And how come that second wife usually becomes the husband's favourite and gets to spend more time with him?

[LOZOTRON]

I'd like you to say that to Muslim women in Kuwait, Qatar, Emirites. They'd laugh you out of the region. Just becasue a few nations (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) treat their women bad doesn't mean it's in Islam. Also don't get all high and might on us, you treated your women like cows.

Why is it against the law for more then two people to get married?


high and mighty, no.
i'm not sniping, or 'having a go'. your right in saying not all women are treated that way, but some are so my comment is still valid.

women are treated as cows in england? its seems very apt to flip reverse that, seen as cattle are kept in heards.
tbh woman are treated unfairly everywhere. bad one eh.
i'm off x

[Black_Barook!]

I doubt that women raised with the notion that one day they may become second wife to someone, actually feel degraded by the thought of it. They may even view it as totally right.

Not really, it's taught in our schools as normal but I know females that would spit in their husbands eyes (Kuwaiti saying) if he even thought of such a thing.

Yeah, then why is it that the second wife is usually much younger than the first one and she almost never has children of her own? And how come that second wife usually becomes the husband's favourite and gets to spend more time with him?

Well gee, men will abuse anything for their own needs. I should know.

And LOZOTRON I don't mean now, I meant it was so in the Middle Ages and I believe that doesn't give you a right to critize our entire faith or culture when yours (assuming you are Christian or European [Though I still count North Americans with Europeans]) did the same.

[LOZOTRON]

And LOZOTRON I don't mean now, I meant it was so in the Middle Ages and I believe that doesn't give you a right to critize our entire faith or culture when yours (assuming you are Christian or European [Though I still count North Americans with Europeans]) did the same.


i'm a catholic and british, but everything aside i apologise for any offence. i'm quite abrupt with my words .. :mute:

[Elyasis_SC]

If you can't support an extra, don't get one. I see too much room for corruption within this law.

[The_Oceanborn]

Can a woman have multiple husbands? I see the polygamous marriage allowed as sexist because they didn't allow polyandrous marriages at the same time. I do not think much of it. Why marry if you want to be married to multiple wives at once? And why EXTRA welfare benefits?
The British government shouldn't be that naive and give extra welfare to people who certainly don't deserve it. I'm all against Sharia laws and it shouldn't be allowed in the western society. I'm all for immigration but the immigrants should respect the country they immigrate to. If the government is that naive they can lead thousands of non muslim brits to anti-immigrationism and even nazism.

[palabravampiress]

I'm not British or an adherent to any one faith. I am American and I do not adhere to any one faith.

First of all, where is all of this talk of Islam coming from? Muslims may be the majority of polygamists in Great Britain, are not the only people Great Britain to practice "polygamy." Because marriage is defined very narrowly by some countries, many people of diverse faiths and backgrounds have arrangements that I would consider polygamous. In these situations, three or more romantically connected adults live together as a family unit. For example, my friend used to be part of a belly dancing troupe. In this troupe, there was a household comprised of three women. Two of the women regarded themselves as married to one another (even though gay marriage was illegal in the state in which they resided). The third was romantically involved with both spouses and lived in and contributed to the household, but her status in the household was not yet such that the others felt it necessary to call her a "wife." It was, however, implied that this status was possible should all parties one day desire it. I do not know anything about the religious affiliation of these women, but I do know that I would consider this an example of polygamy. There are many more arrangements held between private individuals than are commonly considered "marriages" in most countries.

I don't think a government should dictate to its citizens which interpersonal relationships they may or may not form. In that spirit, I think welfare benefits should be based solely on household income, with no distinctions made for type of relationship whatsoever. To make distinctions seems not only discriminatory, but also has a tendency to diminish individual freedom. I am married and I am not on any sort of welfare. But if our household income was such that welfare was required in order to eat, then why should our marital status have an effect on the type of benefits to which we are entitled? One does not have to be married at all or to only one other person in order to be hungry, so why must one be married at all or married to only one other person to claim benefits that will allow one to eat? If a country is going to put in place a system designed to feed, clothe, and otherwise provide for the poor, I think it would do well to extend those benefits to ALL poor, not only those poor that satisfy certain marital status requirements. I just don't see what a person's marital status has to do with his or her level of need. A system that is in place to address need seems like it is not doing its job if it turns away the needy for any reason, especially for a reason that is so wholly unconnected to the issue of need.

[Peppermint_SC]

I'd like you to say that to Muslim women in Kuwait, Qatar, Emirites. They'd laugh you out of the region. Just becasue a few nations (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) treat their women bad doesn't mean it's in Islam. Also don't get all high and might on us, you treated your women like cows.

Hey now, compared to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan treats it's women alot better. At least women in Pakistan can have many of the same jobs as men and hold positions in the goverment. The country still has a long way to go but comparing it to SA is inaccurate.

As for the multiple wives thing in Islam, the reason it was allowed was because at the time it was hard for widows to support themselves and with all the tribal warfare going on at the time there were many widows, meaning that alot of the tribes had more women than men. So the rules for multiple wives were made so that these widows could be supported. From what I heard, the logic behind why men could have multiple wives but women couldn't have multiple husbands was because if a woman had multiple husbands and got pregnant it would be hard to tell who the father was (especially with lack of testing at the time) which could lead to inheritence issues. But a man with multiple wives could obviously tell, if one of the wives were pregnant, who the father was. (Unless she was cheating XP)

Of course times have changed now, while multiple marriages may have some benifits in the middle ages, now I see no need for them. Especially in developed countries such as Britian where there are no wars, plenty of people to marry, and single women can be able to support themselves and get help from the goverment. So I don't see why they should have extra benifits. And Doddibot made a good point, if they can't even support more then one wife then they shouldn't have married them.

[lockshockbarrel]

I second the question, Why are we only talking about muslims here? I have a friend who's an atheist, and poly-.... I don't know what the term is, but he doesn't fall in love with just one person at a time.

And I don't see any problem with that.

To everyone saying, "Why should they get benefits? If they can't afford to marry, they shouldn't marry!" By that logic, we shouldn't give benefits to monogamous couples either. Yet, we do.

[The_Oceanborn]

I second the question, Why are we only talking about muslims here? I have a friend who's an atheist, and poly-.... I don't know what the term is, but he doesn't fall in love with just one person at a time.

And I don't see any problem with that.

To everyone saying, "Why should they get benefits? If they can't afford to marry, they shouldn't marry!" By that logic, we shouldn't give benefits to monogamous couples either. Yet, we do.

Yes. What I find disturbing isn't the poly-thing, it's the "it is only relevant for men" thing. And I think polyandrous/polygamous marriages are not necessary. Why marry if you want many at once? The whole thing is a "women seen as property" thing. And why give extra benefits?

[lockshockbarrel]

Yes. What I find disturbing isn't the poly-thing, it's the "it is only relevant for men" thing. And I think polyandrous/polygamous marriages are not necessary. Why marry if you want many at once? The whole thing is a "women seen as property" thing. And why give extra benefits?


I didn't see it say anywhere that it would only affect men with multiple wives, just that it would probably benefit them more. So, poly people of all kinds could benefit from this. I don't quite understand the extra benefits thing for monogamous couples, either.

[kittielickie_SC]

As an American woman, if my husband came home and told me he wanted to marry another woman and me at the same time, I'd probably kick him in the behind and show him the door. I feel that I got married to be with one person. I chose him to spend my life with, not him and another woman. That would never work for me. Of course, I don't live in a country that teaches that it's okay. I'm a firm believer in 'product of your environment' theory. I want one partner, not two. If I didn't want to be with just him, I wouldn't have gotten married.

I don't think that they should get extra benifits. I agree, if you can't suport more than one wife, don't marry another.

[omarawad]

It's disgsuting that this has become a debate about Muslim law. It's not only Muslim's tjat can have more than one wife. I understand that It's outlawed in most religions, bu there is still the matter of Atheists. They have no religion to dictate their lives. Yet I see little mention of that.

[kinneer_SC]

So basically Britain has now gone ahead and said polygamy is now OK and legal now in the UK. Although Britain will now allow such marriages to take place in the UK. But this does not prevent such marriages to occur out side the UK, then move back or too the UK after the marriages have taken place.

So the question is, should polygamy be made legal in this case much as the current government of Brittan has? Is this in a way pandering to one group of people as being brought up.

Great, more taxpayers' money being spend stupidly. Why should the state help these people to support their lifestyle? There has been reports of such families getting over 20k per year from benefits.

If these people wants more wives and children, they should support them, not the state.

[palabravampiress]

Great, more taxpayers' money being spend stupidly. Why should the state help these people to support their lifestyle? There has been reports of such families getting over 20k per year from benefits.

If these people wants more wives and children, they should support them, not the state.

Well... I guess the question here is why do you think the husband should support the extra wives and children? Children, yes, but why the wife?

Like many others, I'm not sure why we're addressing the question of state supported spouses in a society that affords women equal (or very near) opportunity in the workforce. One would think that the multiple spouse arrangement would be beneficial because it could introduce multiple breadwinners into the family, therefore negating the need for state support. In the traditional husband-and-one-wife arrangement, a couple balances the cost of childcare against the potential earning power of a second income. Sometimes, it is more cost effective for the lower earning spouse (usually, but not always, the wife) to remain at home with the children. That makes sense. In a one-husband-and-two-wives scenario, though, there are three potential earners. That means that a family can garner the benefits of both a dual-income household and a single-income household: two incomes and one spouse at home to care for the children. If these families are still earning so little as to qualify them for state benefits, then I suspect that the real problem lies not in the practice of polygamy, but in the wage disparity between men and women and also between the majority and the groups most likely to practice polygamy. If families with double or triple or even greater earning power than traditional families are still barely scraping by at subsistence levels, that tells me that there is a problem with the economy either in the areas in which such families are likely to live or in terms of workplace discrimination against one or more groups into which such families are likely to fall.

[kinneer_SC]

Well... I guess the question here is why do you think the husband should support the extra wives and children? Children, yes, but why the wife?


That is a fair point and I admit I was being presumptuous when I made my statement. I was looking from a view where the husband was the sole bread winner. If this group of people were married and some wives worked and some did not, that is fine. In general, this group of people should be responsible for its own finances and should not rely on the state to support their lifestyle.

The state does not pay any benefits to the non-working member of a married couple as it expects the working member to be responsible for him/her. So it should be the same for a poly-married group of people.

[sayyadina_SC]

Well, that is what happens if you accept to take on more and more immigrants. You will import a new culture as well. They should have thought about that beforehand.
From the economical point of view, a man with two wives is just another household, like any family-constellation on welfare. Not a big deal. Its either giving them some money, or throwing them out of the country. Just keeping people as starving, jobless citizens is not an option, cause that means you have a whole new social problem on your hands. Beggars in the street and thieves, maybe, and a lot more homeless.
Good luck governments, with your immigration-policy. Now, I didn't mean to make this sound racist or anything. Its just that politicians are really stupid sometimes.
Personally I don't care who's on welfare or not. Its just money, and it isn't mine, so I gladly share it.

[kinneer_SC]

Well, that is what happens if you accept to take on more and more immigrants. You will import a new culture as well. They should have thought about that beforehand.

And by that same token I could say the reverse is true. It not too un-reasonable to ask the immigrants to respect the host country in turn. I have been to a few places around the world and meet different people and most welcome the different cultures into their daily life. I like eating fish and chips, pizza, pasta, curry, sushi, dim sums etc. The problem is when the two cultures clash and in these cases, I believe the host country should take precedence.


From the economical point of view, a man with two wives is just another household, like any family-constellation on welfare. Not a big deal.
It is a deal when they want a change in laws and regulation regarding polygamy when polygamy is illegal in the country.

Personally I don't care who's on welfare or not. Its just money, and it isn't mine, so I gladly share it.
That statement is so wrong. How can you share something that is not yours?

[broo_SC]

so we as tax payers are paying for someone elses religion that we dont even conform to.
if they cant afford to keep thier wives, then dont have them.

Wait.. So, some crazy muslim with no job now gets £33.65 for every extra wife he has? Why don't they stop breading like rabbits and get a job, for the sake of God..? £33.65.. You don't even get that for extra kid!

[callum91_SC]

LOL! :lol: Another FABULOUS move from the UK! :clap: Let some Muslim with 6 wifes, who has never paid a penny in Tax, come over, and take over £200 a month for him and his wives, excluding the countless children, and hes entitled to that!
But when WE move back, we are entitled for just £0.40p a MONTH! For 4 of us [parents, just the 2 of them, and me and my brother], we get that, oh what a great country we live in!
I'm converting to Islam :|

[robokitty]

Does anyone else think it would be hilarious if this cash incentive was just a carrot to lure all the bigamists into revealing themselves for prosecution?

"Here's your £33.65 AND your prison sentence! Pwned!"



In all seriousness, though, what a stupid law. If people should get government support for anything, it should be for the number of children, not wives.

And seriously, why write a law like that and only include wives as needing support? What about my future harem of men? :D

[spiderviveka_SC]

I think polygamy should be legal. But I do not think they should get extra benefits for it. If you can't afford 10 spouses, don't marry them!

[egyptcheer]

I second the question, Why are we only talking about muslims here? I have a friend who's an atheist, and poly-.... I don't know what the term is, but he doesn't fall in love with just one person at a time.

And I don't see any problem with that.

To everyone saying, "Why should they get benefits? If they can't afford to marry, they shouldn't marry!" By that logic, we shouldn't give benefits to monogamous couples either. Yet, we do.

Its not really a Muslim thing... I would know, I'm Muslim. Islam doesn't say "hey you should have multiple wives" it just doesn't say you shouldn't have more than one. its more of a cultural thing. So people of certain cultures who are Muslim have multiple wives. not all Muslims. In fact probably only like 2 or 3% have more than one. most Muslims fall in love with one person just like everyone else. Just thought I'd clear that up. There are a lot of stereotypes going around about Muslims and none of them are true. :D :luff:

[egyptcheer]

Yes. What I find disturbing isn't the poly-thing, it's the "it is only relevant for men" thing. And I think polyandrous/polygamous marriages are not necessary. Why marry if you want many at once? The whole thing is a "women seen as property" thing. And why give extra benefits?

Another thing. its not really women seen as property thing. some cultures are just like that. they find it normal to have more than one wife or husband. there are a few cultures where women have more than one husband. and its not just for male chauvinist sake. Sometimes its because there just aren't enough men in there societies, so the women have to share some of them. its also for population. ;)

[maxon]

(You guys have gay marriage correct?)
Not quite yet - it's just about to be made into law.

having multiple wives does not seem bad but might actually be bad . Because having multiple wives means disloyalty towards your first wife , unless she allows it that's a different story.
As I understand it, it is commonly understood that the first marriage has failed when a man takes a second wife. They remain married to the first one because divorce isn't allowed except in extreme circumstances in most places. I'm sure this is not always the case but it would seem it is quite a lot of the time - I'm just quoting friends and students from the middle east.

[Rawra]

Multiple wives? Why not multiple husbands? What do men have and women don't?

Sexism is so disgusting. Either way, I don't agree with polygamy on either sides. If you marry someone else, you completely disrespect your first spouse, and you're a fucking asshole, no matter man or woman. Period.

[VerDeTerre]

Mostly I agree with that thought, The Creeper. To me, it seems like you've lessened the relationship or diluted it when you bring other people in. But I've been exposed more recently to those who practice polyamorism. Those people see love as more open and can have marriages with many people. I'm not clear how it works, if all the members become married to one another or if only some individuals marry more than one. It seems complicated.

[BlakeS5678]

An award should be given to egyptcheer for EXTREME necromancy, a 4 year old thread. That's impressive.

[maxon]

Blimey - didn't realise it was so old. I wondered why I hadn't been reading about it.

[Black_Barook!]

Well seeing as how the dead have been brought to life, why not embrace it? So what happened with these new marriage benefit policies so far?

[SilentPsycho]

I'd like you to say that to Muslim women in Kuwait, Qatar, Emirites. They'd laugh you out of the region. Just becasue a few nations (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) treat their women bad doesn't mean it's in Islam. Also don't get all high and might on us, you treated your women like cows.

Really? When my aunt and cousin both worked in Kuwait, they definitely had trouble with the men. Some would randomally come up and stroke their hair, just looking them in the eyes was apparently an invitation to have sex, and one guy even assumed my aunt was a hooker just because she was alone as she waited for a taxi outside her apartment block. In the end, they had to be constantly chaperoned by a male coworker, never look at anything apart from the ground, and could only say direct orders to any male, otherwise it was taken as an invitation.

I wouldn't exactly call that equal.

Anyway, back on topic, I wouldn't mind it if polygamy over here became legal, but I dislike the idea of pandering to a certain religion and excluding others, as well as extra benefits.

[GnatGoSplat]

I'm married, and I don't agree with marriage benefits at all. Why should anyone, whether in a polygamous or monogamous relationship, deserve any kind of benefits over that of single people? If anything, single people deserve the breaks for being lonelier! Gov't should stay out of marriage altogether. Then we wouldn't be forced to have to define what it is, who is allowed to do it, and who gets what tax benefits from it.

[Mistermook]

Government can't help but be involved in marriage, because essentially marriage is a variation of a partnership contract with specific clauses mostly aimed at disposing of inheritances and child-rearing. Governments are involved in contracts because they're the agency of recourse when contracts fail and agent you record those contracts with in the first place, just like any other contract. The only agencies that are unnecessary but for some reason commonly want to insert itself into that contract are religious ones, but they're the least important figures in marriage. Really, the whole concept of a monogamous marriage only owes itself to the Catholic Church performing its slowly inserted presence in every aspect of European life during the Middle Ages - because Paul had a bunch of sexual hangups and would have preferred everyone to remain virgins until death (with inevitable consequence of forcing the deity to intervene and knock everyone up I presume) but eventually they backed off and just tried to make sex as unpleasant and narrowly defined as possible.

But if you strip that away, it's always been and always will be a secular domestic partnership regardless of how many participants or whatever else may be going on. In that sense the government giving tax privileges to married people is no more outlandish than them giving tax privileges to any small business. And from an economic standpoint, having people come together (for whatever reason) to pool their wealth and purchase things that individuals alone could not, that's not a terrible thing. It essentially creates a wealthier virtual citizen that's the married group (monogamous or otherwise) and that's enough to pull some people out of their previous economic circumstances. That is, it's good for economic mobility.

[BlakeS5678]

I'm married, and I don't agree with marriage benefits at all. Why should anyone, whether in a polygamous or monogamous relationship, deserve any kind of benefits over that of single people? If anything, single people deserve the breaks for being lonelier! Gov't should stay out of marriage altogether. Then we wouldn't be forced to have to define what it is, who is allowed to do it, and who gets what tax benefits from it.

Yes. Because two incomes isn't enough, they need benefits too. What's that? Married couples need benefits because they more likely to have kids. Well, it's not like the're getting benefits from their kids too! (Obvious sarcasm alert)

[VerDeTerre]

I would think the marriage benefit was given to encourage marriage, which is weird because it seems outside the realm of our government. On the other hand, maybe it came about from a time when Americans thought the typical married couple consisted of one breadwinner - the male, and one unemployed homemaker.

[BlakeS5678]

I would think the marriage benefit was given to encourage marriage, which is weird because it seems outside the realm of our government.

I don't think we need ANY more encouraging then. We wouldn't have a 55% divorce rate if people weren't so snappy to get married. But, why would the government care? The're practically profiting off divorces.

[Mistermook]

I'm ready for gay divorces and poly divorces. I'm fine with that.

[VerDeTerre]

I don't think we need ANY more encouraging then. We wouldn't have a 55% divorce rate if people weren't so snappy to get married. But, why would the government care? The're practically profiting off divorces. Again, I said I thought it was outside the concerns of the government, but if you look at it this way, a government should be concerned with it's people. If the population is stable or growing, it would be seen as good for a nation, especially a new and developing nation such as the US was for a long time. Typically or traditionally, marriage was seen as the foundation for building families. None of this thinking takes the divorce rate into consideration unless there is somehow a penalty for divorce.

People, by the way, will still marry the wrong person or not show the necessary skills to stay married even if they take their time getting married. Divorce happens for many reasons that are complicated. Relationships are complicated. When you are in a long term relationship, you might begin to get a glimpse of this. And something to consider, since I'm sensing a judgement on your part: If you are blessed or lucky, you won't be abused by your spouse. If you are good, you won't abuse your spouse. I suspect that there is more abuse going on than is commonly reported. I couldn't believe the number of stories I heard from abused divorced women - so many of them - when they learned I was divorced and we started sharing stories. Divorce isn't always bad.

[GnatGoSplat]

Yes. Because two incomes isn't enough, they need benefits too. What's that? Married couples need benefits because they more likely to have kids. Well, it's not like the're getting benefits from their kids too! (Obvious sarcasm alert)

Yet another thing I don't agree with! I don't agree with tax benefits for having kids either. People who want kids are going to have them, and we don't need to be encouraging anyone to have extra kids that they couldn't afford without tax breaks. Is urban sprawl something we really want to encourage? Isn't 7-billion+ people on this planet enough?

I would think the marriage benefit was given to encourage marriage, which is weird because it seems outside the realm of our government. On the other hand, maybe it came about from a time when Americans thought the typical married couple consisted of one breadwinner - the male, and one unemployed homemaker.

That's my thought too; that it was given to encourage marriage, because co-habitation without marriage is "morally wrong". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've always believed its roots stem from religious influence in government. Religious people who want the bond of holy matrimony will get married whether they get tax breaks or not. People who want to live together and pool their economic resources will still do so even without tax breaks.

[RoseCity]

Yet another thing I don't agree with! I don't agree with tax benefits for having kids either. People who want kids are going to have them, and we don't need to be encouraging anyone to have extra kids that they couldn't afford without tax breaks. Is urban sprawl something we really want to encourage? Isn't 7-billion+ people on this planet enough?
I'm not familiar with a tax benefit for having kids - there's the exemption for dependents which I believe was all of $3800 per dependent last year, the same as the personal exemption. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow every citizen to have this exemption if they appear on a tax return whether as filer or dependent. There's also a child tax credit but over a certain income you don't qualify for it. I don't begrudge poor and struggling people these benefits, especially when people like Mitt Romney are hiding millions of dollars offshore to evade the IRS.

[GnatGoSplat]

I'm not familiar with a tax benefit for having kids - there's the exemption for dependents which I believe was all of $3800 per dependent last year, the same as the personal exemption. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow every citizen to have this exemption if they appear on a tax return whether as filer or dependent. There's also a child tax credit but over a certain income you don't qualify for it. I don't begrudge poor and struggling people these benefits, especially when people like Mitt Romney are hiding millions of dollars offshore to evade the IRS.

I wouldn't object if it was limited - my preference would be "limit 2", one child to replace each parent would be enough to keep the population stable. I don't think we should be rewarding people for having 5+ kids they can barely afford with things like the child tax credit. On the other hand, I do agree with the adoption credits.

I do agree that there should be fewer ways for the wealthy to evade taxes.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

you guys do know that youre part of a society, right? a hive of people, rather than an island?
every choice that anyone makes, costs money from everybody to execute. its part of not living completely on your own. should we stop being allowed to have choices, because i dont want to make those choices, i shouldnt have to pay for them? >_>

my country was founded on the idea of enjoying freedom of choice. if someone else doesnt like it...oh, well. they can go elsewhere. i wouldnt mind paying for it--not my life, but then, i have everything that i need. why should i stop someone from living the way they want to? just because i, personally, wouldnt live that way? thats just such a selfish train of thought.
as long as they arent trying to kill or otherwise traumatize/violate anyone, its fine by me.

if your circumstances are different, you need different treatment. thats just how it goes. you dont treat a disabled person as you would a healthy person, because they have different needs, and visa versa. when will people learn to accept that difference is just one of those things that exists? if you want a truly equal quality of life, i suggest moving to your own island full of clones of you who all do exactly the same things and have exactly the same needs. cripes.

[GnatGoSplat]

my country was founded on the idea of enjoying freedom of choice. if someone else doesnt like it...oh, well. they can go elsewhere. i wouldnt mind paying for it--not my life, but then, i have everything that i need. why should i stop someone from living the way they want to? just because i, personally, wouldnt live that way? thats just such a selfish train of thought.

I'm all for the freedom of choice, but I don't expect, or want others to pay for my choices. I make my choices, I pay for them. You make your choices, you pay for them. I always thought expecting others to pay for your choices was more selfish. It's like saying, "I want it my way, I don't care who has to pay for it if I can't afford it." That sounds more like selfishness, to me, anyway.

[Tempscire]

We wouldn't have a 55% divorce rate if people weren't so snappy to get married.
The average age of first marriage is creeping back to the high end. Maybe we wouldn't have a high divorce rate if we went back to prohibiting women from having careers outside the home, forcing them to stay with whatever jerk they married due to crippling financial dependence.

[BlakeS5678]

Maybe we wouldn't have a high divorce rate if we went back to prohibiting women from having careers outside the home, forcing them to stay with whatever jerk they married due to crippling financial dependence.

Or if they got a stable job, (Weren't so snappy to get married) and didn't need a man to be financially stable in the first place, then there wouldn't be a divorce, because there was no marriage in the first place. That's just my thoughts, and your entitled to yours.

[crocobaura]

Or if they got a stable job, (Weren't so snappy to get married) and didn't need a man to be financially stable in the first place, then there wouldn't be a divorce, because there was no marriage in the first place. That's just my thoughts, and your entitled to yours.


Why do you assume that all divorcing ladies got married for the financial benefits?

[Digitalchaos]

Well, if the people involved in the marriage are happy, then it's fine. But why they are eligible for extra welfare benefits is beyond me - if you can't afford to support your extra wives, don't get anymore!

That is just as bad as having multiple children for the sole purpose of obtaining more 'tax deducations' (at least in the US)

[Mistermook]

We could easily solve this entire issue by providing universal health care to everyone, along with a housing and accommodation allowance for the needy. Then we could all cheerfully go "screw kids! what else do they need? Poor people? Pffft, all taken care of!" No need to get married unless you really want to, no social welfare purpose to tax deductions for married folks or having kids. If we did those things no matter how disparate people's wealth was when they divorced, we would be looking at it as significantly punitive because no on in the country would be completely SOL if they suddenly lost everything, including their income. People living in poly households wouldn't get more than their fair share of the pie, because they'd be sharing the same sort of pie everyone took for granted.

[Tempscire]

Or if they got a stable job, (Weren't so snappy to get married) and didn't need a man to be financially stable in the first place, then there wouldn't be a divorce, because there was no marriage in the first place. That's just my thoughts, and your entitled to yours.
But women do have jobs and financial stability, and they do still continue to get married (albeit later, what with the getting stable jobs and not being so snappy to marry thing)*... so I'm not sure what your counterpoint really is. My point was noting that a low divorce rate in the past (especially when the older generations still around got married much more snappily (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-11-09-delayed-marriage_N.htm) than today's folks!) doesn't necessarily suggest they were more wise, stable, cautious, dedicated, or whatever in getting and staying married, because (for example) it's damn hard for a woman to leave her husband with no money. (And, for a good long time, there was no such thing as a no-fault divorce... and there was a huge stigma against divorcees and otherwise single, non-widowed mothers... thus, unhappy relationships continue while today they take the opportunity to split.)

* The median age for marriage is the highest (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/) we've seen it. Over half (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm) of college attendees are female. The percentage of women who rank (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/young-women-value-career-pew_n_1439017.html) career success highly has risen. More women are in the workforce (http://humanresources.about.com/od/worklifebalance/a/business_women.htm), period.
Though of course, both the situations of no divorce and common divorce/less frequent marriage are more complex than just "job or no job," as I alluded to in the other paragraph.

[GnatGoSplat]

We could easily solve this entire issue by providing universal health care to everyone, along with a housing and accommodation allowance for the needy. Then we could all cheerfully go "screw kids! what else do they need? Poor people? Pffft, all taken care of!" No need to get married unless you really want to, no social welfare purpose to tax deductions for married folks or having kids. If we did those things no matter how disparate people's wealth was when they divorced, we would be looking at it as significantly punitive because no on in the country would be completely SOL if they suddenly lost everything, including their income. People living in poly households wouldn't get more than their fair share of the pie, because they'd be sharing the same sort of pie everyone took for granted.

I'm not sure if your tone was sarcastic or genuine, but I agree with it! :up:

[M.M.A.A.]

Muslim women don't have the right to marry more than one man. So, they don't have same rights as men. Just because you don't beat them for going out by themselves or for wearing lacy undies, doesn't mean they enjoy same rights as men, or that they have same opportunities. All religious issues aside, I find it degrading to be forced to share your husband with 2-3 other women and compete for his attention. If he wants more women in his life, he should by all means stay single. And if he wants to make a display of his wealth he might as well buy another Mercedes or house, not another wife.

Oh no no, you got it wrong. You see, everything has a reason for why it was chosen to be that way. You see, it is said that females are of a larger percentage of the world's population and that is why polygamy is allowed in Islam, it is allowed so that men would marry atmost 4 wives, (+1 if it was a slave (not sure if it is true though)). This way, less females would be left single and childless.

As for competing, it depends on how the wives see each other, some are great friends while others are enemies.

Also, it is true to say that woman in Islam may not be treated as equally as men, because, again, there are reasons, for example, the man would inherit a larger percentage of his father's wealth than his sister's because he will need it to get married, while the girl would be the one who will get married and move to her husband's house. This is just an example.

Yes, I agree, some countries do have some inequalities due to culture norms. Also, not all Muslim parents force marriages, some are quite considerate actually, and I know people who are. Some people came to ask for the hand of a girl, but she refused and her parents didn't force her into it, she was free. Some people have a more modernized cultures than others, with the examples of countries that Baroock gave above.

Also, Islam encourages having large families, and polygamy is one way. The reason why a woman cannot get married to several men is because, if it where to happen,then there will be a mix of genetics, i.e. they will not know which is which's child.

:google: Islam and read the wiki page(s).

[ella_in_wonderland]

I wouldn't object if it was limited - my preference would be "limit 2", one child to replace each parent would be enough to keep the population stable. I don't think we should be rewarding people for having 5+ kids they can barely afford with things like the child tax credit. On the other hand, I do agree with the adoption credits.

AMEN to that!