Legal polygamy in Britain

[Brillopad]

https://www.rt.com/uk/407595-muslim-multiple-wives-polygamy/

This creep is the same guy that I posted about who was in the audience on the Politics Show several months ago who wants Muslim men only, not women, to have the right to several spouses.

He is using his so-called religious ‘beliefs’ to try to interfere with and challenge our own laws on female equality in this country as well as his own creepy desires to control and abuse as many women as he can. Despicable creature.

[Niamh.]

Religion has absolutely no place in law or state affairs. To suggest bringing back inequality for women again is absurd

[thesheriff443]

Religion has absolutely no place in law or state affairs. To suggest bringing back inequality for women again is absurd

Lets be fair, it never really left.

The fact women in this country get less money than a man for doing the same job is disgusting.

Women are being abused all over the world and its justified by religion.

[Withano]

I personally think all humans are polygamous, and the only reason people pretend otherwise is because of some firm deep-rooted social construct.

This guy seems a tit for other reasons.

[thesheriff443]

A large majority men from all back grounds cant treat one wife right, let alone two.

[Niamh.]

Lets be fair, it never really left.

The fact women in this country get less money than a man for doing the same job is disgusting.

Women are being abused all over the world and its justified by religion.

Well that's true enough but this is like a million steps backwards!

I personally think all humans are polygamous, and the only reason people pretend otherwise is because of some firm deep-rooted social construct.

This guy seems a tit for other reasons.

Speak for yourself

[Niamh.]

A large majority men from all back grounds cant treat one wife right, let alone two.

I don't think treating them right would be high on this guys agenda tbh :laugh:

[Livia]

"[Yasmin] Rehman, who is a Muslim, added: “I think he’s flouting the law – anyone else would be subject to polygamy laws. It sits alongside websites like brides from abroad.

“I meet women who have been trafficked and prostituted. I’m fed up with this being accepted. There are Muslim women across the world fighting this, some at great risk to themselves.”"

Quote of the article, I have nothing to add.

[user104658]

In general I say each to their own (when it comes to relationship stuff), like I don't really see what the justification for having any arbitrary rules about marriage or anything else in anyone's personal life... but obviously not if it's with the intention of men having a tonne of wives rather than an actual mutual and equal lifestyle choice.

Whether or not it actually ever work is another debate... I tend to come to the conclusion that relationships are complicated enough in the standard format :laugh:. But yeah I can only see it "working" in any practical sense if it's people who are marrying for "practical reasons" - wealth, security, etc. - which I doubt really ever works out well anyway.

[Withano]

Well that's true enough but this is like a million steps backwards!



Speak for yourself

Only 3% of mammals are monogamous, the rest have multiple partners because its evolutionarily and socially beneficially to do so. It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom. Only real reason, imo, is that its no longer socially advantageous to have multiple partners, actually its very looked down upon, because humans developed (probably originally through religion) a monogamous culture.

The people who cheat are just expressing their animalistic natural urges imo (and I do too look down on that if theyve agreed to have a monogamous relationship), its unnatural for one person to stay with one person for life, but socially beneficial.

[Livia]

Only 3% of mammals are monogamous, the rest have multiple partners because its evolutionarily and socially beneficially to do so. It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom. Only real reason, imo, is that its no longer socially advantageous to have multiple partners, actually its very looked down upon, because humans developed (probably originally through religion) a monogamous culture.

The people who cheat are just expressing their animalistic natural urges imo (and I do too look down on that if theyve agreed to have a monogamous relationship), its unnatural for one person to stay with one person for life, but socially beneficial.

Form an orderly queue, ladies....

[Withano]

Form an orderly queue, ladies....

I have no time for even one relationship! Sorry, Livia. Im off the market.

[Niamh.]

Only 3% of mammals are monogamous, the rest have multiple partners because its evolutionarily and socially beneficially to do so. It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom. Only real reason, imo, is that its no longer socially advantageous to have multiple partners, actually its very looked down upon, because humans developed (probably originally through religion) a monogamous culture.

The people who cheat are just expressing their animalistic natural urges imo (and I do too look down on that if theyve agreed to have a monogamous relationship), its unnatural for one person to stay with one person for life, but socially beneficial.

It's silly to compare animal "relationships" to humans, we have evolved, you said it yourself. How on Earth do you think you can speak for every person in the world and tell them their relationships are unnatural? lol Some people can't do monogamy others can't do anything else

[Livia]

I have no time for even one relationship! Sorry, Livia. Im off the market.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/28e9fd9e928fa7eda78656af8d9ee468/tenor.gif

[user104658]

I personally think all humans are polygamous, and the only reason people pretend otherwise is because of some firm deep-rooted social construct.

This guy seems a tit for other reasons.

I think this gets very complicated. I believe that all humans are naturally polyamorous to a large extent but in the most platonic sense. We are all fully capable of loving multiple individuals on a very deep level WITHOUT it ever having to be more than platonic (in the purest sense of that term) and without it ever having to be in the sense of "multiple partners". Also completely gender / orientation neutral, and still maintaining monogamous sexual relationships with a long term partner.

BUT, this is where social constructs come into it; we are socially hyper-sexualised. Most people simply can't separate having a deep, honest love for another individual - being able to appreciate them both intellectually and physically - without confusing that with "wanting to smoosh genitals". We are socially conditioned to strongly believe that non-familial deep affection = sexual attraction. That aesthetic appreciation of physical form = sexual attraction. That a combination of both must = "being in love and wanting to smoosh loads".

Not least, we're conditioned to see it in other people and that alters people's behaviour and how they express themselves. People are afraid to express connections, deep appreciation, or love of people who they have NO intention of being in a relationship with or being sexual with, simply because other people (or the person it's directed at) might assume that they DO want that. Particularly true of people in relationships.


So yeah in basic terms, I think people are much more capable of deep un-selfish love than we allow ourselves to be, because society (and definitely mainstream society) going back pretty much forever is far too focused on the sexual aspect of human closeness.

[Withano]

Oh yeh, polyamorous, thats the word I meant

[thesheriff443]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, is this any different to men and women signing up to web sites to have affairs.

[Withano]

Every creature evolves with what benefits themselves most is kinda the basic jist. The only real reason I can think of for why humans go against this is because of how we're (mostly) socially against whats evolutionarily good for us.

[smudgie]

Their marriages wouldn't be recognised in this country, apart from the original one.
No different to western men and women sharing their jollies around other than they call it polygamy to cover their arses re adultery laws in a given religion.
Either partner can walk away at any time and basically say we are now divorced, as they were never legally married:joker:

[Livia]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, is this any different to men and women signing up to web sites to have affairs.

A whole plethora of people can get hurt when people sign up to dating sites for affairs. Seems to me the only people who could get hurt here are women. Women went through a lot to have a vote and a voice, we're not even there yet... so I'm against anything imported that is not as much in the interests of the woman as the man.

[thesheriff443]

I have had a lot of women, its not big or clever, meaning less sex is meaning less

[Niamh.]

A whole plethora of people can get hurt when people sign up to dating sites for affairs. Seems to me the only people who could get hurt here are women. Women went through a lot to have a vote and a voice, we're not even there yet... so I'm against anything imported that is not as much in the interests of the woman as the man.

Yep exactly.

[Livia]

Their marriages wouldn't be recognised in this country, apart from the original one.
No different to western men and women sharing their jollies around other than they call it polygamy to cover their arses re adultery laws in a given religion.
Either partner can walk away at any time and basically say we are now divorced, as they were never legally married:joker:

Polygamous marriages are recognised for welfare benefits, and there are tens of thousands of recognised polygamous marriages in the Muslim community in the UK already.

[smudgie]

I think this gets very complicated. I believe that all humans are naturally polyamorous to a large extent but in the most platonic sense. We are all fully capable of loving multiple individuals on a very deep level WITHOUT it ever having to be more than platonic (in the purest sense of that term) and without it ever having to be in the sense of "multiple partners". Also completely gender / orientation neutral, and still maintaining monogamous sexual relationships with a long term partner.

BUT, this is where social constructs come into it; we are socially hyper-sexualised. Most people simply can't separate having a deep, honest love for another individual - being able to appreciate them both intellectually and physically - without confusing that with "wanting to smoosh genitals". We are socially conditioned to strongly believe that non-familial deep affection = sexual attraction. That aesthetic appreciation of physical form = sexual attraction. That a combination of both must = "being in love and wanting to smoosh loads".

Not least, we're conditioned to see it in other people and that alters people's behaviour and how they express themselves. People are afraid to express connections, deep appreciation, or love of people who they have NO intention of being in a relationship with or being sexual with, simply because other people (or the person it's directed at) might assume that they DO want that. Particularly true of people in relationships.


So yeah in basic terms, I think people are much more capable of deep un-selfish love than we allow ourselves to be, because society (and definitely mainstream society) going back pretty much forever is far too focused on the sexual aspect of human closeness.

Well said TS.
Putting it simply, life is a whole lot easier once we realise that lust, infatuation and love are not all the same thing.


Very nice when all three come together in a relationship though.:hehe:

[Niamh.]

Every creature evolves with what benefits themselves most is kinda the basic jist. The only real reason I can think of for why humans go against this is because of how we're (mostly) socially against whats evolutionarily good for us.

and where do children fit into your polygamous utopia btw?

[user104658]

It's silly to compare animal "relationships" to humans, we have evolved, you said it yourself. How on Earth do you think you can speak for every person in the world and tell them their relationships are unnatural? lol Some people can't do monogamy others can't do anything else

It is a bad comparison and mostly because this part;

"It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom."

is actually not really right at all, surely. Humans are animals yes but the evolution of the human brain is at this point so far beyond any other animal life (on earth...) that being quick to compare to the animal kingdom never really gains much. The basics being... the vast majority of animals don't love at all. We like to assign pets human characteristics - we like to pretend that our dogs love us in a human way - they simply don't, and can't, because non-human animals simply aren't capable of the level of abstract thought required for "human love"... therefore they can't really be placed in a debate about the nature of human connection.

Animal instinct is relevant to a discussion about desire, or "lust", but they're completely different things. Other than the fact that (again, going back to it) most people are deeply socially conditioned to confuse the two.

[Withano]

and where do children fit into your polygamous utopia btw?

No idea, I'm not planning or petitioning for change! All I'm saying is I think polyamorous-ness is a thing that exists in all humans, but some do a better job at surpressing that to abide by our monogamous culture.

[Niamh.]

It is a bad comparison and mostly because this part;

"It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom."

is actually not really right at all, surely. Humans are animals yes but the evolution of the human brain is at this point so far beyond any other animal life (on earth...) that being quick to compare to the animal kingdom never really gains much. The basics being... the vast majority of animals don't love at all. We like to assign pets human characteristics - we like to pretend that our dogs love us in a human way - they simply don't, and can't, because non-human animals simply aren't capable of the level of abstract thought required for "human love"... therefore they can't really be placed in a debate about the nature of human connection.

Animal instinct is relevant to a discussion about desire, or "lust", but they're completely different things. Other than the fact that (again, going back to it) most people are deeply socially conditioned to confuse the two.

Exactly. I mean it's kind of a basic idea anyway to say humans should be polygamous because .....sex.... etc. A monogamous relationship, a good monogamous relationship should I say is so much more than that. In my idea of what makes a good relationship and what I think makes my own relationship good, it would be impossible for it work with a third or fourth person in the mix

[Withano]

It is a bad comparison and mostly because this part;

"It wouldn't make sense that humans evolve from other mammals, develop a larger brain to separate them from their predecessors, and then go against all logic that millions of years of evolution taught the animal kingdom."

is actually not really right at all, surely. Humans are animals yes but the evolution of the human brain is at this point so far beyond any other animal life (on earth...) that being quick to compare to the animal kingdom never really gains much. The basics being... the vast majority of animals don't love at all. We like to assign pets human characteristics - we like to pretend that our dogs love us in a human way - they simply don't, and can't, because non-human animals simply aren't capable of the level of abstract thought required for "human love"... therefore they can't really be placed in a debate about the nature of human connection.

Animal instinct is relevant to a discussion about desire, or "lust", but they're completely different things. Other than the fact that (again, going back to it) most people are deeply socially conditioned to confuse the two.

I mean, love can be explained by a chemical reaction in the brain that doesnt exist in other animals. Chocolate can cause the same reaction, and so could a multiple partner if it was socially acceptable to have one, and people very hypothetically lived in an unimaginably different world to what we're in now.

[smudgie]

Polygamous marriages are recognised for welfare benefits, and there are tens of thousands of recognised polygamous marriages in the Muslim community in the UK already.

Yes, but if we westerners are living tally that is recognised for welfare benefits as well.
I think the big issue for me is if the women are coerced into the polygamous marriage and into thinking they have no options.
Also that unlike a first wife then they won't perhaps have the same entitlement to a share in the house etc once they are cast aside.

[Livia]

Humans aren't the only animals that "mate for life", although I'm pretty sure we're the only ones who fall in love. It seems to me giving labels like polyamarous etc. is a nice little "get-out" for people who cheat - male and female.

[Niamh.]

No idea, I'm not planning or petitioning for change! All I'm saying is I think polyamorous-ness is a thing that exists in all humans, but some do a better job at surpressing that to abide by our monogamous culture.

So you think everyone in a monogamous relationship deep down doesn't want to be? That's kind of a bold claim that you think you know how everyone in the world feels

[Livia]

Yes, but if we westerners are living tally that is recognised for welfare benefits as well.
I think the big issue for me is if the women are coerced into the polygamous marriage and into thinking they have no options.
Also that unlike a first wife then they won't perhaps have the same entitlement to a share in the house etc once they are cast aside.

Except that polygamy is actually against the law. It's a strange thing...


Totally agree with everything else there.

[user104658]

Every creature evolves with what benefits themselves most is kinda the basic jist. The only real reason I can think of for why humans go against this is because of how we're (mostly) socially against whats evolutionarily good for us.

Hmmm not necessarily; genetic diversity is evolutionarily good for us and genetic diversity is directly impacted by "alpha male social construct" given the way our society is set up. If we're talking basic animal instincts... the strongest and smartest male around would be doing all of the mating. However, the result is that the majority of offspring are then coming from one genetic source (one alpha) reducing diversity and increasing abnormalities. Also, given that evolution is not deliberately selective (common myth is that evolution = improvement) but is ONLY about being best adapted to environment... there are plenty of ways to argue that life monogamy - or at the very least, serial monogamy (which is actually what most people practice) - is actually an evolutionary advantage for humans.

But anyway... that doesn'tt really even matter. To go back to the point before; the human mind has evolved to the point of abstract / philosophical thought, appreciation of personality and "the individual", which makes us entirely unique (again, on earth, there are probably plenty of emo aliens out there)... and means that social and emotional advantage will always trump evolutionary advantage for humans in every meaningful way.

[Withano]

So you think everyone in a monogamous relationship deep down doesn't want to be? That's kind of a bold claim that you think you know how everyone in the world feels

No, I think deep down they want to be because of the social construct side of things, might even be a cognitive element now we're starting to see what mess we've made to the planet. Ultimately that weighs out our evolutionary instincts.

[Withano]

and means that social and emotional advantage will always trump evolutionary advantage for humans in every meaningful way.

Oh yeh, this was half my point, I just posted pretty much the same to Niamh above. But if mankind was to reset itself, our species would not be monogamous. We only are right now because of how it socially benefits us.

[Kizzy]

I mean, love can be explained by a chemical reaction in the brain that doesnt exist in other animals. Chocolate can cause the same reaction, and so could a multiple partner if it was socially acceptable to have one, and people very hypothetically lived in an unimaginably different world to what we're in now.

Penguins love, and flamingos, young men wanting lots of sex with lots of people isn't unheard of so I can understand your view.. Come back after a couple more saturn returns and you'll have changed :)

[user104658]

I mean, love can be explained by a chemical reaction in the brain that doesnt exist in other animals.

What you're talking about here is "initial attraction", and exactly what I'm talking about, essentially lust confused with love or more colloquially, "a crush", or infatuation. It's a completely different thing to love... and occurs long before a person actually knows anywhere near enough about the other individual to truly declare love. Again, though, lots of social confusion there, lots of people declaring that they "love" people they barely know enough to say that they even like them on any philosophical level.

Actual love is a very complex and abstract psychology.

[Withano]

Penguins love, and flamingos, young men wanting lots of sex with lots of people isn't unheard of so I can understand your view.. Come back after a couple more saturn returns and you'll have changed :)

I think most birds mate for life? Swans do too off the top of my head.. mammals typically do not.

[Niamh.]

Withano I'm just going to let TS answer you I think, he's far more articulate than me but he's saying all the stuff I think :laugh:

Come back to me when you actually meet someone who changes your mind though :p

[Niamh.]

I think most birds mate for life? Swans do too off the top of my head.. mammals typically do not.

A List of Animals That Mate for Life


Gibbon apes
wolves
termites
coyotes
barn owls
beavers
bald eagles
golden eagles
condors
swans
brolga cranes
French angel fish
sandhill cranes
pigeons
prions
red-tailed hawks
anglerfish
ospreys
prairie voles
black vultures

[Withano]

Actual love is a very complex and abstract psychology.

Debateably its just phenylethylamine and dopamine reacting to one another, like it does when you eat bar of chocolate, and like it would if you met a third of forth relationship interest. Its a good feeling which other animals dont experience.

[Niamh.]

Debateably its just phenylethylamine and dopamine reacting to one another, like it does when you eat bar of chocolate, and like it would if you met a third of forth relationship interest. Its a good feeling which other animals dont experience.

That's lust you're talking about again

[Withano]

That's lust you're talking about again

No thats the chemical reaction for what we know as love, actually just googled 'norepinephrine' is in the mix too.

[Kizzy]

'However, the current Government have decided to no longer recognise polygamous marriages and there are measures in the Welfare Reform Bill which will bring this change in policy into effect under universal credit as from 2013'

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cdd-6awjBmAJ:researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05051/SN05051.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#9

[user104658]

Oh yeh, this was half my point, I just posted pretty much the same to Niamh above. But if mankind was to reset itself, our species would not be monogamous. We only are right now because of how it socially benefits us.

But all you're saying there is that if we reset to a state of "early man" that would happen - but that's losing the millennia of capacity for abstract thought that we have developed... you're comparing the modern human mind with the ancestral human mind which is apples and oranges? The second part being the idea that we wouldn't necessarily go down the "mostly monogamous path" on a second run at it... but that's sort of irrelevant too, as these "parallel universe humans" would not be "our humans". :think:


Also worth considering, I think; the vast majority of human cultures are monogamous, and were already monogamous upon discovering each other without being influenced by any obvious source in common. It's unlikely that so many disparate human cultures spread across the globe would have developed in largely the same way in this respect by coincidence... so you have to consider then that the "root" of it is likely to be something basic to human psychology that goes beyond social / cultural norms. In other words... there is a reason that it IS the social / cultural norm, and it's not because a single guiding force "artificially" took it in that direction.

[Niamh.]

No thats the chemical reaction for what we know as love, actually just googled 'norepinephrine' is in the mix too.

This is the fight or flight hormone? news flash you don't feel like that all the time, this is lust, love doesn't feel like that all the time. You are mistaken, when you google it they may be using the word love but they're talking about lust or initial attraction :

The first attraction causes us to produce more PEA, which results in those dizzying feelings associated with romantic love

http://asdn.net/asdn/chemistry/chemistry_of_love.php

[Withano]

But all you're saying there is that if we reset to a state of "early man" that would happen - but that's losing the millennia of capacity for abstract thought that we have developed... you're comparing the modern human mind with the ancestral human mind which is apples and oranges? The second part being the idea that we wouldn't necessarily go down the "mostly monogamous path" on a second run at it... but that's sort of irrelevant too, as these "parallel universe humans" would not be "our humans". :think:


Also worth considering, I think; the vast majority of human cultures are monogamous, and were already monogamous upon discovering each other without being influenced by any obvious source in common. It's unlikely that so many disparate human cultures spread across the globe would have developed in largely the same way in this respect by coincidence... so you have to consider then that the "root" of it is likely to be something basic to human psychology that goes beyond social / cultural norms. In other words... there is a reason that it IS the social / cultural norm, and it's not because a single guiding force "artificially" took it in that direction.

Well yeah, I'd have to talk about a parallel universe really, because I can't explain it with who we currently are after that millenia of abstract thinking, and wedding ceremonies, and disney.

As a species, we are not monogamous.
As a society, we sure as **** are.

[user104658]

No thats the chemical reaction for what we know as love, actually just googled 'norepinephrine' is in the mix too.

It's the chemical reaction for what has become confused as being love (self serving feel-good infatuation) in a wider society that - like I said from my very first post - readily confuses this with the completely different, entirely philosophical concept of actual human love.

It might sound twee, but I suppose you have to have experienced both to understand the difference. 10 years ago there were girls in my past that I would have sworn blue in the face that I had "loved". I now understand that what I felt towards them was the chemical response that you are describing and it is not love... nor, frankly, anything even close to resembling it.

Like Niamh, I do genuinely hope that you'll get to know the difference at some point :shrug:.

[Withano]

Well I guess if your argument is love causes monogamy, it is difficult for me to argue against. I personally think our social construct caused it, and long after the feeling of 'love' (by any definition) was first experienced.

[Livia]

'However, the current Government have decided to no longer recognise polygamous marriages and there are measures in the Welfare Reform Bill which will bring this change in policy into effect under universal credit as from 2013'

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cdd-6awjBmAJ:researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05051/SN05051.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#9

"Social security benefits
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse, but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit (UC) is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age but is not expected to be fully introduced until 2022. The 2010 Government decided that the UC rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships. This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under UC than under the current benefit and tax credit system."


Source: House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 05051 21 06 2017

[user104658]

As a species, we are not monogamous.
As a society, we sure as **** are.

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear :umm2: ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

[Niamh.]

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear :umm2: ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

:laugh2:

[user104658]

"Social security benefits
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse, but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit (UC) is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age but is not expected to be fully introduced until 2022. The 2010 Government decided that the UC rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships. This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under UC than under the current benefit and tax credit system."


Source: House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 05051 21 06 2017

What I'm mainly wondering about (to join this more boring political side of the discussion :joker: ) is how it applies to the tax allowance transfer scheme? You know the thing where a spouse can transfer a chunk of their tax-free allowance if they are under the minimum tax threshold (think it's £1500 or something...). So... could you have like 20 spouses and get £30k added to your tax free allowance? :think:

Funny side story: I told a coworker of mine about this scheme as her husband is retired, but she filled in the form the wrong way round, and transferred part of HER tax allowance to HIM, meaning she got taxed more rather than less :joker:. And didn't notice for months, then got really mad at me. Ahh good times good times...

[Withano]

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear :umm2: ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

[Niamh.]

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

A swan won't always mate for life but they usually do

ETA I think TS already covered that though, you can't compare a Lion to a human

[Livia]

What I'm mainly wondering about (to join this more boring political side of the discussion :joker: ) is how it applies to the tax allowance transfer scheme? You know the thing where a spouse can transfer a chunk of their tax-free allowance if they are under the minimum tax threshold (think it's £1500 or something...). So... could you have like 20 spouses and get £30k added to your tax free allowance? :think:

Funny side story: I told a coworker of mine about this scheme as her husband is retired, but she filled in the form the wrong way round, and transferred part of HER tax allowance to HIM, meaning she got taxed more rather than less :joker:. And didn't notice for months, then got really mad at me. Ahh good times good times...

I don't think it's likely to you can benefit from the tax system like that. I'm afraid you'll have to stick to just the one wife.

[Livia]

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

Promise me, Withano, that you're going to come back to this thread when you fall so hard for someone that you can't think straight. I'll happen... and it'll blow your neat, clinical theories out of the water x

[Kizzy]

"Social security benefits
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse, but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit (UC) is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age but is not expected to be fully introduced until 2022. The 2010 Government decided that the UC rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships. This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under UC than under the current benefit and tax credit system."


Source: House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 05051 21 06 2017

The information you have provided was in my link you know, that said due to the benefit cap how could this benefit polygamous families? Even if they were to claim independently they all have to be residing in the same home and therefore be subject to the cap again, not to mention the loss of pension entitlement for any let alone one spouse.

[user104658]

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

Again though you're assuming that nurture doesn't play a part in the lion being a playah. If you remove a lion cub from all lion contact and lion socialization until it's an adult... you can't make any definitive statements about how it's likely to behave at all. All mammals have higher brain function and are shaped by social interaction.

I'm not saying that you're WRONG that thousands of years of society have influenced how we conduct ourselves in terms of relationships now... I'm saying it doesn't really matter; social evolution is as relevant as biological evolution to our desires and behaviors. Again I think you're trying too hard to separate nurture from nature, and also putting too heavy an emphasis on the importance of nature / instinct in a species that has the level of higher brain function that humans do. OK maybe not everyone chooses to USE all of that function; but nonetheless, we do have it :laugh:.

[user104658]

I don't think it's likely to you can benefit from the tax system like that. I'm afraid you'll have to stick to just the one wife.

:hmph: I was only going to have one real wife, but I had the printer ready to go with a bunch of forged birth and marriage certificates. :bawling: Bye bye, fake tax wives... I hardly knew ye...

[Withano]

Promise me, Withano, that you're going to come back to this thread when you fall so hard for someone that you can't think straight. I'll happen... and it'll blow your neat, clinical theories out of the water x

Sure. Next time it happens, I will do. Like just a heads up, I'd probably still feel like humans are monogamous by society norms, and not by evolutionary needs.

I don't think love has caused monogamy at all, but it is difficult to argue against, I'll give it that much.

[Livia]

Sure. Next time it happens, I will do. Like just a heads up, I'd probably still feel like humans are monogamous by society norms, and not by evolutionary needs.

I don't think love has caused monogamy at all, but it is difficult to argue against, I'll give it that much.

I'll take it! LOL...

[Crimson Dynamo]

having lived with a few woman

one is really all men should be expected to put up with

any more is just cruel

:worry:

[Withano]

I'll take it! LOL...

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more (which I still wouldn't do, the idea of one person is already tiring). Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

[user104658]

Sure. Next time it happens, I will do. Like just a heads up, I'd probably still feel like humans are monogamous by society norms, and not by evolutionary needs.

I don't think love has caused monogamy at all, but it is difficult to argue against, I'll give it that much.

All I can really say Withano... is that you need to look at the bigger picture and realize than humans are not anything by evolutionary need any more. As a species we have socially transcended that phase, as evolution is based entirely on adaptation to suit environment (smartest, strongest or most versatile prevailing depending on environmental need) and human beings no longer need to be any of those things to procreate. Evolution is, at this point, irrelevant to humanity.

THAT presents a whole set of other problems (horrendous overpopulation, no equilibrium with habitat, eventually the inevitable exhaustion of the planet) but we're going way off track there...

[Livia]

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more. Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

Well, good luck with that... remember, you'll also have two mother-in-laws and I can tell you from experience, one is more than enough.

[Withano]

Well, good luck with that... remember, you'll also have two mother-in-laws and I can tell you from experience, one is more than enough.

Ah no I edited that bit after you quoted haha.

[thesheriff443]

Love can be a one sided affair, or love out of convenience.

Years ago a bride to be on a hen night wanted to sleep with me wich is a weird situation.

I wish I only ever had one ever after love, falling in love a watching I fail leaves you with regret.

[Livia]

All I can really say Withano... is that you need to look at the bigger picture and realize than humans are not anything by evolutionary need any more. As a species we have socially transcended that phase, as evolution is based entirely on adaptation to suit environment (smartest, strongest or most versatile prevailing depending on environmental need) and human beings no longer need to be any of those things to procreate. Evolution is, at this point, irrelevant to humanity.

THAT presents a whole set of other problems (horrendous overpopulation, no equilibrium with habitat, eventually the inevitable exhaustion of the planet) but we're going way off track there...

That deserves its own thread. Overpopulation is the future-calamity that needs more of a platform.

[Withano]

All I can really say Withano... is that you need to look at the bigger picture and realize than humans are not anything by evolutionary need any more. As a species we have socially transcended that phase, as evolution is based entirely on adaptation to suit environment (smartest, strongest or most versatile prevailing depending on environmental need) and human beings no longer need to be any of those things to procreate. Evolution is, at this point, irrelevant to humanity.

THAT presents a whole set of other problems (horrendous overpopulation, no equilibrium with habitat, eventually the inevitable exhaustion of the planet) but we're going way off track there...

No, I think deep down they want to be (monogamous*) because of the social construct side of things, might even be a cognitive element now we're starting to see what mess we've made to the planet. Ultimately that weighs out our evolutionary instincts.

I honestly think we're on a similar thinking line. I just think humans are inherently polyamarous, but go against this for multiple reasons. I too believe that we will revert back to this state if needed to, unlike swans and lions who would keep their status forevz, regardless of any potential drastic environmental changes.

[Livia]

Ah no I edited that bit after you quoted haha.

Haha... too slow.

[user104658]

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more (which I still wouldn't do, the idea of one person is already tiring). Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

On that one I'd just direct you back to my original post: It's possible (or should be possible) for humans to love multiple people, fully and deeply, without any desire to become sexually involved with or socially entangled with multiple partners. The reason that people can't accept this is BECAUSE human society has - falsely - equated aesthetic LOVE with instinctual LUST... and driven the message home that if you find someone of the opposite sex physically beautiful and intellectually engaging, then you simply MUST want to put your genitals on them and / or spend every waking moment with them.

I would suggest to you that polyGAMY and polyAMORY are not the same thing, and that a monogamous person can love multiple other humans without it being in any way sexually motivated.

[Livia]

I honestly think we're on a similar thinking line. I just think humans are inherently polyamarous, but go against this for multiple reasons. I too believe that we will revert back to this state if needed to, unlike swans and lions who would keep their status forevz.

Actually lions are more like humans than we think. The women raise the kids and sorts out the food while the man lays around on the Serengeti, scratching himself...........

[thesheriff443]

Actually lions are more like humans than we think. The women raise the kids and sorts out the food while the man lays around on the Serengeti, scratching himself...........

They gay lions are different, they are getting their mains and nails done in jungle salon.

[thesheriff443]

And that's a joke by the way

[user104658]

That deserves its own thread. Overpopulation is the future-calamity that needs more of a platform.

It's too late Livia! It's been over since the early 1800's (1 billion humans, about what the planet can realistically handle indefinitely). Damn you, industrial revolution :fist:.

We need a good plague :devil:

I remember watching "Rec 2" (which was pretty rubbish, tbf) and at some point it transpires that the virus has been deliberately manufactured and released by a group who want to cull the human population right down to the millions...

... which is supposed to be all nefarious and stuff, but I was watching it like ":umm2: Is it bad that I sort of think they're not wrong?" :joker:

Then again, I sympathise with the philosophical standpoint of the villians in an alarming number of movies and TV shows :think:.

[Withano]

It's too late Livia! It's been over since the early 1800's (1 billion humans, about what the planet can realistically handle indefinitely). Damn you, industrial revolution :fist:.

We need a good plague :devil:



The end of the cold war will probably get the numbers down to like tens? hundreds of thousands?

[user104658]

The end of the cold war will probably get the numbers down to like tens? hundreds of thousands?

Yeah but if we end up nuking the place, that's more an end-game scenario than a fix. Like... we just flat out broke it.

Though I guess things would probably be OK in a couple of million years and some other civilization could evolve and there would still be some stuff left for them to use, which is preferable to us leaving the place a lifeless husk like nibbling locusts.

Then again, they'd probably just end up doing the same thing.

"Hey Schlelgrarb! Look at this! I have discovered an ancient civilization that bombed each other to dust using these super powerful weapons... AND there's blueprints for how to make them!"

"Awesome! We hate the Shploobers from Schblobereen, they'll never mess with us once they know we have these!"

"Oh no they have them too now..."

*another million years later*

"Hey Krekgrrarl! Look at this!!"

[Brillopad]

Yes, but if we westerners are living tally that is recognised for welfare benefits as well.
I think the big issue for me is if the women are coerced into the polygamous marriage and into thinking they have no options.
Also that unlike a first wife then they won't perhaps have the same entitlement to a share in the house etc once they are cast aside.

ON the Politics show the creep quite happily stayed his wife was not happy about it but quite frankly didn’t care. He wanted his fun but under no circumstances was she ‘allowed’ to do the same. She had no say in anything which is abuse.

[Brillopad]

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more (which I still wouldn't do, the idea of one person is already tiring). Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

It isn’t even about being monogamous because creeps like him only accept it in men. It is blatant sexism and abuse of wives in a culture where women have little or no choice. It is also something he is trying to promote in Britain and set female equality back years.

I doubt he would be so keen to set back equality laws for race - he is just an ignorant pig who believes the world revolves around him and wants his cake and eat it. He is hoping the PC brigade will pander to his cultural ‘rights’ whilst hoping that the rights of women get swept under the carpet as per cultural norms within certain societies.

[Withano]

It isn’t even about being monogamous because creeps like him only accept it in men. It is blatant sexism and abuse of wives in a culture where women have little or no choice. It is also something he is trying to promote in Britain and set female equality back years.

I doubt he would be so keen to set back equality laws for race - he is just an ignorant pig who believes the world revolves around him and wants his cake and eat it. He is hoping the PC brigade will pander to his cultural ‘rights’ whilst hoping that the rights of women get swept under the carpet as per cultural norms within certain societies.

Oh yeah, hes a moron. Whats good for the goose etc.

[jaxie]

Just another excuse for the male of the species to have his cake and eat it too. Anyone who thinks the woman in any of these relationships has many choices is deluded. It's pretty outrageous if the state recognises it and so does the benefits system. It's tantamount to slavery.

[Vicky.]

This thread has been such an interesting read.

I agree with others that this guy is a ****ing douche. I also tend to think that those who crow on about wanting more than one wife...are unlikely to be able to satisfy the one, nevermind many. Sexist dinosaurs never seem to extend the thought to women either

[waterhog]

https://www.rt.com/uk/407595-muslim-multiple-wives-polygamy/

This creep is the same guy that I posted about who was in the audience on the Politics Show several months ago who wants Muslim men only, not women, to have the right to several spouses.

He is using his so-called religious ‘beliefs’ to try to interfere with and challenge our own laws on female equality in this country as well as his own creepy desires to control and abuse as many women as he can. Despicable creature.

despicable man - shame on him.

can someone please leave me a link to how to get multiple wife's :joker:

[DemolitionRed]

Some Muslims enjoy polygamy
Some none Muslims enjoy polyamory
Some people enjoy swinging
Others enjoy an open marriage
Most enjoy monogamy.

As for me... I'm seriously considering polyandry!

[smudgie]

Some Muslims enjoy polygamy
Some none Muslims enjoy polyamory
Some people enjoy swinging
Others enjoy an open marriage
Most enjoy monogamy.

As for me... I'm seriously considering polyandry!

:joker: you just need one hubby that can do everything DR.:joker:

[DemolitionRed]

:joker: you just need one hubby that can do everything DR.:joker:

It would be nice. He can do a lot but he can't cook and it would be so nice to have an extra who could :tongue:

It seems to work here

u7HKmu3eMEk

[Oliver_W]

The fact women in this country get less money than a man for doing the same job is disgusting.


That doesn't actually happen though.

The "wage gap" is simply the average earnings of men and women working full time. It does not account for hours worked or different jobs. It's been debunked so often and so thoroughly I wonder why anyone still envokes it.

[smudgie]

It would be nice. He can do a lot but he can't cook and it would be so nice to have an extra who could :tongue:

It seems to work here

u7HKmu3eMEk

Never too late for him to learn DR, mine has come on leaps and bounds this last 18 months or so.
Can cook a full Christmas dinner from scratch and his lasagne is to die for.

[DemolitionRed]

Never too late for him to learn DR, mine has come on leaps and bounds this last 18 months or so.
Can cook a full Christmas dinner from scratch and his lasagne is to die for.

You trained him well Smudgie. Can I send mine to you for a short course?!?

[Oliver_W]

Just another excuse for the male of the species to have his cake and eat it too.
Someone's never been married!

[Niamh.]

Someone's never been married!Jaxie is married as far as I'm aware

[jaxie]

Jaxie is married as far as I'm aware

Yup to the father of my grown up kids. He's a great cook too. His chicken curry with coconut is fantastic.

[user104658]

Yup to the father of my grown up kids. He's a great cook too. His chicken curry with coconut is fantastic.But does he have his cake and eat it too? That was the question...

[jaxie]

But does he have his cake and eat it too? That was the question...

No he doesn't have several other wives as well, I'm plenty to handle all by myself he wouldn't have the energy.

[user104658]

I've had enough of pursuing this dirty double-entendre, I give up :hmph:

[jaxie]

I've had enough of pursuing this dirty double-entendre, I give up :hmph:

It's all about the stamina. :smug: