To allow Polygamy would bankrupt the US Welfare system just as Islam does when Muslim men have 4 wife's and many children on food stamps and TANF. This has caused the collapse of welfare funding in many countries in the UE, If this is allowed it will open the door to incest and pedophilia being legal. This has to stop somewhere folks. It clearly states in the New Testament that men should have only one wife at a time. Now the book of Mormon seems to differ on this matter and there is a warning in the book of Revelation about changing things. Polygamy is NOT a teaching of the Christian faith.
29 comments
I don't think we should rush into polygamy because changing all the laws around marriage would be a decades-long nightmare. Now same sex marriage, that's easy. But polygamy would require informed consent of wife 1 when wife 2 comes along, and definitions of who is financially responsible for the children of another wife, and simultaneous multiple divorces if one leaves. VERY complicated.
Dear Mr. Carter,
According to Muslim tradition, the only way a man can take on (up to) four wives is if he can afford it. That means as a man who can afford (up to) four wives, he has money enough to support his family.
Many Thanks
(OP)
"To allow Polygamy would bankrupt the US Welfare system..."
How so, exactly?
1 man married simultaneously to 4 women = 5 people in 1 marriage
1 man and 4 women who can't all marry each other at once = 8 or 10 people in 4 or 5 marriages, depending on whether the 1 man's wife is or isn't one of these 4 women
Seems like plural marriage would put less stress on the welfare system through simple arithmetic, not more. Also, having more potential bread-winners in one household decreases the need for welfare in the first place. Food and clothing budgets typically do increase proportionally as the number of people in a household increases, but home payments (whether rent or mortgage), utility payments, and payments for vehicles don't.
France does NOT accept polygamy, but widows of foreigners who died after working in France can share the "pension de reversion". (i.e. roughly one half of the pension that did recieve the guy while retired but still alive).
It's mainly costly in terms of paperworks, the amount directly paid does not change. But some colleague of mine formerly worked on the computerization of this split of the pension, and it was a costly nightmare. Especially when you have a 2-digit number of widows spread out in several different war-torn countries. The act of paying costs much more than the amount to pay.
And the funny things : the more widows die, the more money survivors recieve - as the basis for calculation is always the same.
Of course, the OP is making a great caricature. There are some problems with quite a few families like that, but this is not the main problem of France's social system. The main problem is firm owners who don't pay their fees. That's 20 times more, IIRC.
Still, I agree with him : polygamy should not be allowed, and neither polyandry.
It clearly states in the New Testament that men should have only one wife at a time.
So what was marriage like in the Old Testament? I'll give you time to look it up and answer.
And I like the divorce loophole thrown in there with "at a time." Further proof that Christians really don't care about divorce, and all the claims about same sex marriage destroying traditional marriage while ignoring divorce was just a lame scare tactic.
@Kanna
I don't think we should rush into polygamy because changing all the laws around marriage would be a decades-long nightmare. Now same sex marriage, that's easy. But polygamy would require informed consent of wife 1 when wife 2 comes along, and definitions of who is financially responsible for the children of another wife, and simultaneous multiple divorces if one leaves. VERY complicated.
I agree, and then when you bring the marriage laws of each state into play, you know you're going to have 50 different versions of marriage & divorce laws for polygamists. I don't see it as impossible, but it will be a legal nightmare.
That being said, I don't oppose polygamy on moral grounds as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult who knows what they're getting into. Personally, though, it's not for me. I couldn't imagine having more than one wife to pretend to listen to! Ba-dum-tishhh!
We already had/have this in the US. Warren Jeffs and followers married multiple underage girls, but only the oldest would be legally registered wives, while sister wives would file for all sorts of unmarried mother benefits- they called it "bleeding the beast." In other words, actually doing what White people have been accusing Black people for doing.
I think eventually there will have to be some sort of legitimized polyamory system, but it might have to have quite a few variations.
@CuriousAndMoreCurious
So does that mean wives COULD have more than one husband at a time?
No, it only means the husband can have one wife at a time. If you read the biblical passages, if a woman gets divorced and remarries, she commits adultery as long as her husband is alive. But the man can divorce and remarry as much as he wants without committing that sin. Yes, it's some fucked up misogynist shit.
@ #1853125
Quite a few. Not polygamous marriage within the EU, but most EU countries recognize marriages which are valid in the countries in which they were made. Some years ago, there was a case in the UK of a woman who contested her marriage in India to a man whose only presence at the wedding was in the form of a photograph of himself. The European Court upheld the validity of the marriage as the wedding was legal in Indian law.
Well, not everyone is a Christian. Our nation is secular. Or rather, it was supposed to be, until people started justifying pandering to religion under so-called "ceremonial deism."
I don't think that Qatar, the UAE, and all oil rich nations are renowned for their generous welfare policies. I don't think that drops in oil prices that hurt their economies are linked to welfare.
One minute the right wingers claim that Muslims are emigrating to exploit our welfare system, the next they're stating that their countries are failing due to welfare.
"It clearly states in the New Testament that men should have only one wife at a time"
The Old Testament gives other suggestions, and remember that Jesus didn't say that he came to dismiss it. You use the OT often enough to support your other stances, so it'd be hypocritical if you just pick and choose what you should follow.
"Now the book of Mormon seems to differ on this matter and there is a warning in the book of Revelation about changing things"
Shame that the first Christians were keen on change when they based their religion on the original Judaic faith.
Is there anyone* in the USA actually trying to introduce polygamy, or have they realised they have lost the fight against homosexual marriage and thus want to take the first strike against the next issue on their postulated slippery slope?
*Of course, with anyone, I mean "anyone with influence" or "any movement", not "four Islamists, five Mormons, a few hippies and one guy caught up in a love triangle"
Here's the fucking thing
If you're Islamic and have many wives you better be a fucking Oil Sheik or you can fucking die. Goes for you Mormons and Duggar shits as well.
It's already bad enough that we have to explain to our kids that the welfare Catholics (cause dads a fucking dumbfuck no skills and/or useless drunk) have a better van and nicer house because they have ten kids (ONTARIO!) but now you goat blowers are pretending Islamics are winning on this?!
That's it's now about Christianity using the system to outvote anyone not Christian?!
Fuck RIGHT off. There's never been a more pandered to and unproductive system the the Christian C(CON)hurch.
Pay you dues to the fucking state, society and the democracy.
Until then, expect attitude, you useless, counter productive shits.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.