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?