Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

How Could This Policy Possibly Go Wrong? [Dan Collins]

Multiple wives means multiple benefits:

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. 

19 Replies to “How Could This Policy Possibly Go Wrong? [Dan Collins]”

  1. B Moe says:

    You gotta start wondering how long before atlas shrugs over there.

  2. SarahW says:

    Hell bent on destruction, they are.

  3. Bill Ramey says:

    England: “We stood up to Hitler so that we could destroy ourselves from within.”

  4. Pablo says:

    Why would you allow people living in an arrangement that is illegal in your country to immigrate?

    Oh, because you’re insane. Forget I asked.

  5. B Moe says:

    Why would you allow people to immigrate to your country to go on welfare?

  6. Dan Collins says:

    It creates jobs . . . in the government sector.

  7. Darleen says:

    B Moe

    Because of teh COMPASSION!!!!!1!!

  8. McGehee says:

    So, will Muslim men be able to bring in child brides too, as part of a polygamous marriage, if the marriage to the toddler was legal where initiated?

  9. Carin says:

    McGehee — I don’t think you’re trying hard enough to understand THE OTHER.

    I do have to laugh at the irony of men with multiple wives needing welfare. I thought the whole idea behind that dealo was that the rich and able-to-provide studs got to have as many wives as they could afford and it was the poor schmucks with low income had to do without.

  10. Rob Crawford says:

    I do have to laugh at the irony of men with multiple wives needing welfare. I thought the whole idea behind that dealo was that the rich and able-to-provide studs got to have as many wives as they could afford and it was the poor schmucks with low income had to do without.

    When you’re collecting jizya from the kuffir — who call it “welfare” — you can afford multiple wives.

  11. stace says:

    That’s what I thought, too, Carin. I thought it was that you could have only as many wives as you could support, with a max of four. This welfare deal is un-Islamic.

  12. Yet another reason to define marriage as between (1) man and (1) woman.

    There is no functional difference between those who favor gay marriage and those who favor polygamous marriage.

  13. JD says:

    stoning people to death for being gay or being raped is hunky-dorey where they came from. How long until they just give up on enforcing their own laws so as to not offend?

  14. TmjUtah says:

    The reason polygamy exploded in America in the 1960’s was the War on Poverty.

    Unmarried women with kids got paid more for having more babies. Today, the conservative number of citizens living in polygamy is 50K… with more than half that number being minor children.

    There wasn’t such a thing as publicly- acknowledged bigamy/polygamy because state governments were adamant about ignoring the problem. Empires began to form in the hinterlands of Utah, Arizona, and southern Colorado. And the Feds kept sending larger and larger checks until the advent of welfare reform. But the state still pays SCHIPs and food stamps…

    You’d be amazed at what thirty years of compound interest can do for clan holdings in stocks, real estate, and commodities in towns where the entire population is poly.

    England is dead. Maybe we can trade Berkley, Boston, and Martha’s Vineyard for one logistic hub with a big hospital and airbase somewhere in Eastern Europe and be done with the Old Country for good.

    No more American crosses in European fields. They are on their own.

  15. Merovign says:

    Anyone for starting a pool on which year England will officially collapse, and what the benchmarks will be?

    % of urban areas defined as “no-go” for emergency services?
    Number of destructive (property or person) riots without arrests?
    Legal exemptions for certain persons (like this one)?

  16. McGehee says:

    Anyone for starting a pool on which year England will officially collapse, and what the benchmarks will be?

    Can I pick 1990?

  17. Mhero says:

    Under Islamic Law multiple marriages is acceptable. I think as long as they can provide to support daily needs of how many wives they have and how much children do they have just go on and multiply until Muslim country become full of people and nothing place to live in. I think one day they will realize of having over lapping family is not recommendable.

  18. Shiela says:

    Different strokes for different folks, that what I say. But, I dont think the government should meddle in something that is actually more religious than a governmental concern. I dont believe in the special treatment these marriages will be receiving. There is no need for extra welfare benefits because once they get involved in polygamous relationships they should keep in mind that it is a provision that they will be able to support all spouses. The belief should be just respected and left alone instead.

  19. Rob Crawford says:

    There is no need for extra welfare benefits because once they get involved in polygamous relationships they should keep in mind that it is a provision that they will be able to support all spouses.

    Even when the means of “support” consists of a check drawn from the pockets of working people?

    The belief should be just respected and left alone instead.

    Really? What about the Western belief that polygamy is bad for society? Shouldn’t that be respected?

Comments are closed.