In view of the recent discussion here on Multiculturalism, this article may be of interest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-512043/Muslim-husbands-wife-extra-benefits-ministers-recognise-polygamy.html,

Simple but sad answer Banjo is yes. As soon as we recognized defacto relationships as equal to marriage we opened the gate to every other sinful relationship to be validated by law.

IF....any one ever wondered why I am so passionate NOW..... in regard to where things might lead in the FUTURE, by making the slightest concession to such interests... this should assure them that it is sound, rational and reasonable. (the passion)

<<Ministers have decided that, even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, polygamous marriages can be recognised formally by the state - provided they took place overseas, in countries where they are legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife.>>

THIS... is how rubber meets the road politics works..

WHO benefits? "Muslim Men" (who married their multiple wives overseas)
WHO is negatively effected? "The British taxpayer"

HOW can this now be used for the benefit of ALL Muslim men and the Muslim community as a whole? (to seek demographic and thus political advantage)

Very simply, unless there is specific legislation to the contrary, muslim men can now go overseas from Britain and marry extra wives, then bring them back. (along with all the extended family of each wife)

This is blatant and outright discimination, (I'd call it political sedition) against non Muslims and underlines why not even the slightest concession must be granted to any ethno/religious community which beneifts only them, in ways which are not available to the general community.

This includes

-the construction of discriminatory religion specific facilities on State land,
-Polygamous relationships,
-Marriage to under age female children and
-religiously sanctioned wife beating and
-female genital mutilation,
-the carrying of offensive weapons into school yards and so on.

All you have to do for all the above to become common and legal in Australia is...."nothing"

Same old, same old.

Grab a factoid, put it into a whack-a-mozzie context, and publish it as the imminent collapse of society as we know it.

Here are a couple more facts.

The article was published by that thoroughly upright organ, the Daily Mail, in February 2008.

The issue was raised on the Number10.gov.uk petition line in October 2008. This was the UK government's formal response.

"The current rules for paying income-related social security benefits to people in a polygamous marriage have been in place since 1988 when Income Support was introduced. They reflect the fact that polygamy is only recognised in UK law in circumstances where the marriage ceremony has been performed in a country whose laws permit polygamy, and the parties to the marriage were domiciled there at the time of the marriage.

Provided the parties follow the necessary requirements under the law of the country in question, the marriage would be recognised in UK law. The law is drafted thus because the Government have no desire forcibly to sever relationships that have been lawfully contracted in other jurisdictions. This should not, however, be construed as government approval of polygamous marriage. The Government do not support polygamous marriage, and support the law that prohibits parties from contracting polygamous marriages in this jurisdiction.

The benefit rules for people in a polygamous marriage have been designed to ensure that there is no financial advantage to claiming welfare benefits for those in such marriages. Contributory benefits are not payable where the marriage is polygamous. In the income-related benefits, subject to entitlement conditions being met, the claimant and one spouse receive benefit at the couple rate; additional spouses receive the difference between the couple and single rate, an amount that is lower than that of the single rate"

And the amount payable per additional wife?

"The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65"

Boaz, in the light of this information, would you like to modify some of your more outlandish claims?

Or would you like me to detail them for you, one by one?

You are totally incorrigible, aren't you.

Thanks Pericles for exposing this thread as the Islamophobic beat-up that it obviously is.

<< Same old, same old >>

Quite so. Yawn.

Perilous.... note my carefully worded "unless specific legislation to the contrary" ...and you have added to the debate by providing some insights.

That's what debate/discussion is about.. it's about various people contributing.. and added to the knowledge base.

If we didn't have a bit of passion here and there..what would be the motivation to clear things up ?

Still, having said all that.

ANY recognition of ANY non monogomous relationship is a step downward and definitely means the end of civilization. (that's for your entertainment benefit)

The phrase "and domiciled there at the time" need to be fleshed out greatly!

-"A permament resident?"
-"Dual Citizenship?"
-"Domiciled for how long?"
-Can a UK citizen be domiciled in another country?"

etc etc..

The point remains.. any leeway with the marriage act is dangerous territory!
The slightest bit of giving ground will be seen as weakness and glaring opportunity.

As is clearly demonstrable from the RMIT mosque saga.. people will assume and presume that they have a right by virtue of their culture/religion to persue it at the expense of non them.

by the way..I didn't start this thread..nor did I pay banjo to do so :)

SIR OSWALD's offspring is in a bit of hot water at the moment.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/motorsport/mosley-slams-prude-editor-in-sex-orgy-row/2008/11/13/1226318783500.html

Seems he has a thing for the occasional orgy.

...and of course in him you can see where atheism and lack of any moral anchor can (and did) lead. His is just one of a number of directions of course..but less valid than...yours?

Banjo, runner and Polycarp out of the blocks in a trice. A sniff of a proselytizing opportunity sets them going like the wind.

Not stayers, however. Spoil-sport Percicles caught them on the bend and left them in his dust.

How about a shorter race next time boys (when no-one's looking)?

By the way, does anyone know the collective noun for a trio of poor proselytizers?

As far as excusing yourself goes, Boaz, that was pretty poor, even by your standards.

>>note my carefully worded "unless specific legislation to the contrary"<<

Not valid. There is no legislation needed, unless you believe that the British government should decide it has the right to "forcibly... sever relationships that have been lawfully contracted in other jurisdictions".

>>The phrase "and domiciled there at the time" need to be fleshed out greatly!<<

I haven't got time to do your research for you, Boaz, but I'm pretty sure the courts are fully armed with a definition that disallows any attempts to rort the system.

You seem to imagine that this provides licence for every Muslim to rush off to Saudi or wherever, find another few wives, and re-import them into the UK as they see fit.

Wouldn't happen. They'd never get them through "customs".

And all for thirty quid a week? Yeah, right.

You're scaremongering Boaz, just as you always do. No amount of squirming will get you out of this one.

So, how about it? Confess to us all that you picked up a juicy whack-a-mozzie topic, didn't do any research on it, as usual, and simply let your imagination run wild on what might be the "consequences".

Hard facts, Boaz.

The law hasn't changed since 1988.

It won't make anyone rich.

It costs the taxpayer diddly-squat.

>>The point remains.. any leeway with the marriage act is dangerous territory! The slightest bit of giving ground will be seen as weakness and glaring opportunity.<<

Rot.

And as for your pathetic attempt to change the subject...

>>and of course in him you can see where atheism and lack of any moral anchor can (and did) lead. His is just one of a number of directions of course..but less valid than...yours?<<

So transparent.

You have been caught red-handed in a flagrant act of severity one whack-a-mozzie.

Take your lumps like a man, Boaz.

(As my delightful partner would say, that involves putting your hands over your eyes and whimpering in a corner)

a "dirge"?

a "Farabeuf"?

a "damnation"?

Romany

Nice.

How about a pushcart of proselytizers or a puffpaste of proselytizers or a pratful of proselytizers?

A 'polywaffle'?

What was exposed is that the UK government quietly recognized multiple marriages, as of Dec 2007, in relation to immigrants.

Previous to this only one husband and one spouse were recognized. The ministerial review was carried out because some were getting around the existing laws by having pseudo divorses and then bringing out spouse number 2 as is their entitlement.

The Ministerial review concluded that recognising overseas multiple marriages was the best possible option.

The ramifacations of this, marriage recognition, are significant, as this means that both spouse 1 and spouse 2 and so on have permanant residence and can become citizens. Of course any children qualify as well. As well as the spouse allowance they qualify for a more generous public housing and council tax benefits, Plus all other health, education benefits that UK citizens enjoy.

Who would ever have thought that British law would make allowances for polygamy. No wonder the government did not publicise it.

Simply Government again giving in to ethnic demands on 'cultural grounds'

Oh, and spikey, I am not religous at all and never comment on religous matters. My views on polygamy itself are on record here at OLO.

Ah Bugsy - I think that the alliterative "polywaffle" is the undisputed winner. Especially germaine on this forum!

Damn. I pushed the button prematurely. Meant also to commend the "pratfull", Spikey, - the linkage to "pratfall" was subtle but inescapable. Good stuff.

Errrr... you didn't actually read what they said, did you Banjo?

>>What was exposed is that the UK government quietly recognized multiple marriages, as of Dec 2007, in relation to immigrants.<<

The government did not "quietly recognize multiple marriages, as of Dec 2007."

"The current rules for paying income-related social security benefits to people in a polygamous marriage have been in place since 1988 when Income Support was introduced."

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17264

Of course, if you would like to take issue with a formal government statement, then please feel free to do so. Only it would be good if you provided some evidence to back it up.

You claim that:

>>Previous to this only one husband and one spouse were recognized. The ministerial review was carried out because some were getting around the existing laws by having pseudo divorses and then bringing out spouse number 2 as is their entitlement. The Ministerial review concluded that recognising overseas multiple marriages was the best possible option.<<

A reference would be useful here, because as it stands, the only documentation we have seen supports my position, not yours.

Banjo, I'm not sure why you started this thread, but it appears to be designed to encourage precisely the reaction that Boaz demonstrated.

The Daily Mail piece was a classic beat-up, dredging up an arcane gobbet from twenty-year-old legislation and speculating - as you have done - on its possible ramifications.

So you will forgive me if I don't ascribe to your discussion piece the purest of motives.

Despite the self congratulatory and extremely shallow triumphalism of various usual suspects here.. sorry Perilous.. we caught you in the straight.. or at least Banjo did.

<<What was exposed is that the UK government quietly recognized multiple marriages, as of Dec 2007, in relation to immigrants.

Previous to this only one husband and one spouse were recognized. The ministerial review was carried out because some were getting around the existing laws by having pseudo divorses and then bringing out spouse number 2 as is their entitlement.>>

Pericles said: "The law has not changed since 1988" errr really?

Banjo..I think Pericles is calling you a liar mate.. not a good look for him...

The most interesting aspect of his post is the degree of denial it involves. The infantile suggestion I (we)? should goto corner and mope is well.. a bit below Pericles usual form.

He has been caught out with his hands in the till.... "The law hasn't changed since..." yet he confidently declares that I've not done any research? Well.. I'll cautiously agree.. all I did was read some of the article. I've not delved into the law books of the UK.

After all.. why would we need to when Pericles can tell us all we need to know?

Well.. you call them as you see them P,and so will I, I've got a delectable morsel of serious criticism for you on another thread.

ABUSE:

<<Immigration rules say entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife, and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience.>>

This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household.

Notice those words Pericles? "EVEN IF" ....so they can get around the law.
Seems like you are much more of a supporter of Sharia law than you are letting on about?

Yes but Polycarp, you hadn't done even the most basic research and thought the race was just one lap when it was 4 laps; and you and yours were done in the first.

"...I've not done any research? Well.. I'll cautiously agree.. all I did was read some of the article. I've not delved into the law books of the UK. After all.. why would we need to when Pericles can tell us all we need to know?

Try reading the whole article next time. One day, you might even graduate to books.

Oh dear, Boaz. Looking at the timing of your post against my last one, I think you are suffering from a nasty case of premature expostulation.

>>sorry Perilous.. we caught you in the straight.. or at least Banjo did... He has been caught out with his hands in the till.... "The law hasn't changed since..."<<

I put up a reference for this, from the Prime Ministerial web site.

Now it could be the case that the Government is lying through its teeth, but to make such a claim it would be more convincing if you were to refer to a reasonably reliable source. Sounds fair?

>>I've got a delectable morsel of serious criticism for you on another thread.<<

Where might that be? I'm always happy to be criticized, Boaz. But I prefer to be criticized for actual deeds (or misdeeds).

The same might be said for this little spittle-flecked outburst:

>>ABUSE:

Immigration rules say entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife, and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience. This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household. Notice those words Pericles? "EVEN IF" ....so they can get around the law.<<

I notice the words, Boaz.

But who said them, when, and in what context?

I know that you habitually treat the concept of fact-checking with self-righteous disdain, Boaz.

But honestly, it might help your cause to to a little bit, here and there, even if just for appearance's sake.

How about:

A POLYGAMY of PROSELYTISERS?

BTW, Banjo, polygamy is alive and well in many religions. Just because it has been permitted in Britian doesn't mean it will be permitted here as well. It has been happening for a long in the USA (where we pick up much ideology) besides what is the problem as long as women can have as many husbands as they want and vice versa? Though why anyone would want more than one spouse is beyond my understanding.

All you have achieved is another thread for the wacka-a-mozzie brigade to indulge in their favourite sport.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/03/2263057.htm

>>> A Texas judge has allowed over 400 children removed from a polygamist ranch in West Texas to return to their parents.

State District Judge Barbara Walther ordered parents to be ready for unannounced home visits by authorities and barred them from taking the children out of Texas without court approval.

Parents could begin picking up their children at 10:00am local time and agreed to take parenting classes, according to the order.

The standoff between the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and Texas authorities has fascinated some Americans with lurid allegations of adolescent brides, teenage pregnancies and a secretive sect on a remote West Texas ranch.<<<

Fractelle

Well done. It could be POP for short. Some, however, would instantly conjure up images of corn.

How about a POPPYCOCK of PROSELYTISERS? Same acronym, but.

Pericles,
The bottom line here is that the UK government recognise and make provission for polygamous marriages. This relates to and specificly benefits incoming migrants.

My contacts in UK confirm to me that the ministerial committee review that finished in December 2007 concluded that recognition of multiple marriages conducted overseas was the best possible option, but no public announcement was made. This decission has allowed new provisions to be made for welfare payments for the additional spouses, and of course permanent residence and eligibility for citizenship.

So dispite the spin from the government in trying to play it down and confuse the issue, that is the current situation.

Time and time again we see governments try to lie and spin their way out of contraversial situations. Try Christine Keeler, Watergate, Clinton, children overboard, WMD in Iraq, NSW polys giving themselves a pay rise after midnight and hundreds of lessor known matters. So a confusing statement issued by the government is no more valid than a newspaper article that shows quotes from various people in inverted commas.

My reason for providing the link on OLO was for giving of information as I was unaware of the situation in UK until reading the article and am sure many others were not also. The government there kept it very quiet.

Polygamy was a subject that generated a lot of discussion here not that long ago.

Banjo, with the greatest respect, I would be more convinced if you were able to provide a little evidence. Your anonymous contacts may well have grabbed the wrong end of the stick, as did the Daily Mail.

The recognition of polygamy when conducted under the laws of another country is not confined to the UK - the Netherlands have similar arrangements.

http://www.nisnews.nl/public/120808_1.htm

Problems arise when details like these are sensationalized - it is at base no more than common courtesy, a recognition that different customs exist in different societies.

>>My contacts in UK confirm to me that the ministerial committee review that finished in December 2007 concluded that recognition of multiple marriages conducted overseas was the best possible option, but no public announcement was made. <<

I haven't been able to track down this ministerial committee - its title would be a good start - but as I pointed out before, this represents no change from the position that has existed since 1988.

>>This decission has allowed new provisions to be made for welfare payments for the additional spouses, and of course permanent residence and eligibility for citizenship.<<

New provisions? The existence of these would need to be published somewhere, otherwise nobody would know to claim their entitlements. I haven't been able to discover any new provisions of this kind, but would of course be open to hear the evidence.

>>So dispite the spin from the government in trying to play it down and confuse the issue, that is the current situation<<

How does this fit with your earlier observation that "no public announcement was made? If there was "spin" and attempts to "play it down", surely there would have been some kind of public announcement?

>>So a confusing statement issued by the government is no more valid than a newspaper article that shows quotes from various people in inverted commas.<<

It would also be useful if you could point us to the confusing statement, so we can make up our own minds as to its validity.

Making unsupported assertions like these can easily be misconstrued as mischievous, Banjo.

I suspect that the cost to the-host- community of such relationships might be a little bit more than the £33.65 / $76.73 sum mentioned . The cost is also likely to include the educational and medical expenses of any offspring, and perhaps subsidized housing.

A Current Affair had a story about an example in our own backyard (Granville, Sydney) approx 12 months ago. From memory, though the marriage(s) were not officially recognized the females were receiving single mother benefits & the husband unemployment benefits. Associates of mine who do voluntary community work report it is not an isolated example.

While seeking a link for the ACA Granville story, I came upon this interesting piece:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/01/1033283486605.html
Note the part about his amorous ambitions: "1998 as their worst year when Trad fell in love - 'became obsessed', his wife says - with another woman. In desperation, Hanifeh proposed marriage on her husband's behalf to the other woman"
Note also, the fact that it contravened Australian law didnt seem to faze him.

Maybe, closer to home, we could look at Tribal marriages?

Mse,
Tribal marriages here recognised! That would not surprise me, the NT already has some aspects of aboriginal tribal law recognised and participating in some areas. So much for one nation and one law!

Pericles,
Thanks for the info about Holland, I was also unaware of that, but not surprised given the pickle that quite a few European countries are in because of poor immigration practices allowing massive introduction of alien cultures.

My contacts in UK virtually confirmed all that was in the newspaper article. Though the article was poorly written as it really did not distinguish properly what the new provisins were as against the previous situation. But it can be sorted out if one cares to look carefully.

The confusing statement i refered to was that which you posted in your first post on this thread. It is designed to play the issue down and in fact contradicts itself in saying that nothing has changed and at the end provides the information that welfare payments are now payable to additional spouses. It even gives the ammounts.

Ask yourself this. If nothing has changed and additional spouses for some migrants are NOT recognised, why then is it necessary to make provission for welfare for additional spouses?. Your 'official statement' disclosed that.

I do not oppose polygamy in itself as it seems more honest than a person having an affair, but see a lot of practical problems with it in western society. I was genuinely shocked to see that UK law now provides for polygamy, in any circumstance. It just seems to be against all our traditional history where marriage and even songs and childrens stories relate to marriage being two persons making a single unit and 'they happily everafter'

I can't help but wonder where next will western governments change our laws and standards to accomodate alien cultures.

The second last sentence of my last post should end and 'they lived happily everafter'. This relates to most trsditional plays, books, films and stories.

Where next? Will we allow for cockfights, bullfights, dogfights or downgrade honour killings from murder to manslaughter. Will we allow the eating of dogmeat. whale meat or other exotic dishes we now ban.
Will we ban bikinis and make females cover up at beaches and not disclose so much skin in public. There is ample scope for changes or do we just turn a blind eye to some alien practices, such as FGM, as we do now.

Governments should be responsible for the upkeep of our laws and standards. It should be remembered that many politicians will do almost anything if they think they can get away with it and get a few more votes.

A Trigamy of Proselytizers?

"At least two thirds of our miseries spring from
human stupidity, human malice, and those
great motivators and justifiers of malice
and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and
proselytizing zeal on behalf of
religious or political idols."
Aldous Huxley.

I totally agree with Senator, The Hon. George Brandis SC
Shadow Attorney-General who spoke on the ABC radio,
Wed. 25th June 2008:

"I think that the idea of polygamy is something that is
so remote from Australian culture that it's not
something that any of the mainstream political parties
are going to contenance."

"That's not to be culturally insensitive to people who
may come from a cultural and faith background where,
in some parts of the world, that practice is observed.

That's simply not a custom or practice which would,
in my view, ever be acceptable in Australia."

Foxy,

A Trigamy of Proselytizers? I like it.

Banjo,

"Governments should be responsible for the upkeep of our laws and standards. It should be remembered that many politicians will do almost anything if they think they can get away with it and get a few more votes."

Yes old chap. Like you, many of us had apoplexy when a man's liberty to buy and sell slaves was abolished. Then the government made us stop employing children in our factories and mines. Put the price of employing people up something terrible. The last straw was when the government reduced our standards by giving women the vote and property rights.

I agree with you old man: politicians will do almost anything if they think they can get away with it and get a few more votes. Be a dear old thing and pass the port.

Spikey,
Looks like you are a "progressive" and welcome change including polygamy. Hey why stop there? what about incest, forced marriages, child brides and children sold off into slavery. If other cultures have, and enjoy, these in their everyday lives, Yair, why not us, we could do with more multiculturalism, look at the benefits.

Foxy,
I agree with that bloke and I hope he is right. Our old friend Keyser Trad raised the issue a few months ago. It was not well received on OLO, but it will be raised again no doubt, and the proponents will probably quote UK as a precedence.

Dear Banjo,

I've just read an editorial taken from,
The Australian, 26th June 2008.

The heading read: Polygamous 'marriage'
is not the Australian way.

The editorial argues that,

"Such marriages... would be a minefield of confusion
in relation to taxation, welfare benefits, child support,
superannuation, inheritance, divorce and
custody settlements... this would be the precise opposite
of what many Muslims want when they come to Australia.
Seeking a better way of life in some cases, liberation
from repression."

Back on topic, I read the article and it triggered few thoughts:

- Why is polygamy related to multiculture?
In one US state (South Dakota) there is 50,000 polygamy cases amongst the same culture and religious beliefs.

- Doesn't polygamy exist already with the existence of the 'sperm bank'? Different females can have babies with the same 'virtual male' and each of them claim single mother benefits?

Peace.

Fellow_Human,

"Why is polygamy related to multiculture? In one US state (South Dakota) there is 50,000 polygamy cases amongst the same culture and religious beliefs."

Haven't you been paying attention, you wicked child, you? Multiculturalism is the root of al social evils including child slavery and the abolition of child slavery. (Yes I know that's a contradiction, but when you're against multiculturalism you can say whatever you like.)

Play us another tune on the old Banjo!

You're acquiring some habits eerily reminiscent of Boaz, I'm afraid Banjo. And one of them is a refusal to put issues into a realistic context.

>>My contacts in UK virtually confirmed all that was in the newspaper article<<

Well of course they virtually did. They virtually read about it in the newspaper, so it must be right.

>>Ask yourself this. If nothing has changed and additional spouses for some migrants are NOT recognised, why then is it necessary to make provission for welfare for additional spouses?. Your 'official statement' disclosed that.<<

You did not read it very carefully, Banjo.

It was a self-contained statement, explaining that the law had not changed, nor had the benefits changed, since 1988.

You might also care to reflect on the lower part of the original Daily Mail article - the part that people with low attention spans tend to miss - also points out that:

"The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid"

Note the word "continue", Banjo. That means that the benefits already existed.

The article also made the point that:

"A DWP spokesman said: 'There are fewer than 1,000 polygamous marriages in the UK and only a small percentage of these are claiming social security benefit."

What do you reckon would count as a "small percentage", Banjo?

Five? Ten percent.

Let's say twenty, just to make the size of the "problem" clearer.

Fewer than 200 people is not a significant number in a population of 61 million

£33.65 a week for fewer than 200 people is not a significant amount in a £1.3 trillion economy

Can we please try to keep these events in perspective?

>>I was genuinely shocked to see that UK law now provides for polygamy, in any circumstance.<<

No you weren't.

You just saw a whack-a-mozzie stick, bent over and picked it up.

Spikey,

LOL, you are right I think I should pay more attention in the future :-)

My point as you might have guessed that polygamy should be catered for predominantly from a secular point of view now that marriage types are a freedom of choice to consenting adults (see the Sperm Bank example above).

Also, the number of polygamy cases (see the US example) is above 100,000 cases in the US alone (Google polygamy in the US). So not really sure how few handful of Muslims became the world's problem on polygamy.

Banjo & Polycarp,

Care to comment?

Peace,

We shouldn’t put too much reliance on departmental announcements such as : “A DWP spokesman said: 'There are fewer than 1,000 polygamous marriages in the UK and only a small percentage of these are claiming social security benefit."

What this line should have said was -The number of REGISTERED polygamous marriages is fewer than 1000-
While the number of such marriages in the UK (and Aust) is likely to be small relative to monogamous marriages. Statements by those who should know point to the number of unregistered polygamous relationships being greater perhaps -much greater- that those registered
Note this:
“Sheik Khalil Chami, of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba, said we already had Muslims in polygamous marriages here, and should protect them with legal status.
These weren't just polygamists who had somehow slipped through immigration checks, either: ‘THERE ARE A LOT OF SHIEKS HERE . . . (WHO) CONDUCT THAT MARRIAGE NO PROBLEM AT ALL.’”
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23928410-5000117,00.html
( and I doubt if the situation would be much different in the UK )

And for the above reason, the comment “ and only a small percentage of these are claiming social security benefit." is of doubtful veracity. An unregistered marriage may preclude you from the spouse payout, but there are other perhaps even more lucrative benefits that can be claimed, with a little creativity

Hi F.H.. yes.. I definitely care to comment :)

Pericles first:

<<Problems arise when details like these are sensationalized - it is at base no more than common courtesy, a recognition that different customs exist in different societies.>>

Hmm...'common courtesy' ? absolute rubbish. It is blatant discrimination...that's what it is. One law for them..and one law for us.

The simple and consistent conclusion is that NO person who has multiple wives (or multiple husbands for that matter) should be allowed into the UK as a migrant ...bringing that culturally offensive and illegal (as in bigamy) family structure to the UK or Australia.

It's really so simple ..I don't know why anyone is arguing it.

State Policy.. THE LAW.. is a,b,c....end of story.
Immigration policy must follow: "No person who wishes to bring an alternative family structure to the UK may do so"...

Bigamy.. is illegal...because it is considered 'wrong'.... if it is not considered wrong..then change the law to make it available for everyone.

How hard is that? Pericles...you always minimize small steps in cultural erosion...don't you realize every journey begins with small steps? Surely that's not too big for your brain? Or is your increasingly obvious agenda at play here?

FH.. the existence of illegal marriage relationships does not mean the law should be changed. The idea of a sperm bank= polygamy? nah.. it's wrong way around.. that would =Polyandry.

The closest the bible comes to this is that a man's brother could give his seed and bring about a descendant for his brother. But I sense this was due to the social situation of the day. Obviously, the descendant was his own..not his brothers. But in those days, family name was life itself. There is much more to that issue than we see from our modern perspective.

SUMMARY
So.. my solution to the issue raised by the topic is:

Law on marriage must translate into migration policy, and people who wish to migrate to Australia, must do so on our terms not their's.

If not...then we will morph into a 27 headed cultural monster

Polycarp,

“Bigamy.. is illegal...because it is considered 'wrong'”

In a secular world consenting adults make their decisions individually. Whether its same gender or polygamy, bigamy, polyandry, poultry or Polycarp (just keeping the rhyme).

Back to Horus example above, the 100,000 cases of Polygamy are the known cases in the same culture and religiou belief system,. So does that mean there are few ‘million’ hidden cases?

As for the sperm bank, whatever you call it the impact is the same: different females raising families from a single 'virtual' male. All receiving support (financial & medical) by the system.

Peace,