Tories=Bigots..... proof if needed

LydiaJ

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Genuine question.

If I were to take more than one wife, for example as a practising Mormon, would I be eligible for an ISA?

Almost all Mormons live in countries where polygamy is not lawful. "Mainstream" Mormons no longer practise polygamy. There are countless splinter groups of fundamentalist Mormons who still do, though. Usually, the man marries the first wife legally, and then only "marries" subsequent wives in religious ceremonies that aren't recognised by the state. So legally the man has one wife and several extra co-habiting partners, which isn't against the law. These extra partners then claim single parent benefits to bring up the huge numbers of children that these fundamentalist Mormon groups encourage them to have. In America they sometimes get prosecuted for benefit fraud, and sometimes for child abuse (for arranging marriages for under-age girls to much older men) but not usually for polygamy itself. To get locked up for bigamy you need to be pretending to be legally married to more than one spouse (usually who don't know about each other) - which is not what fundamentalist Mormons usually do.

ETA What have ISAs got to do with it?

Mr.Brown_4

LydiaJ wrote: »

Almost all Mormons...

ETA What have ISAs got to do with it?

Thanks for the info. I had hoped that the Tory change to policy might mean that I could add to my wife's ISA allowance by taking another wife. But maybe that is a question for the Savings board.

blue_monkey_2

I would say that the problem is not so much caused by couples not getting married but because a family home is so unaffordable people (couples and single parents) have kids and ship them off to childminders or nurseries. They get home from work to tuck them into bed each night and the weekend are spent in a rush.

As soon as they kids are old enough they do not go to the childminders because it saves a bit of cash, but they walk themselves home. And as there is no-one waiting they do not go straight home they cause a bit of trouble on the way.

I think the government needs to do more to make a family a family again, not one where both parents have to work to make endsmeet so they never get to see the kids they have given birth to.

I think that this goverment has made is easy to have child after child without being in a relationship because more money gets thrown at the mother for that child. If benefits were capped at the number of children you have when you apply then people might think about having more and more children when they are not in a relationship. I say this because I know someone who intentionally got pregnant because she knew she would get money and not have to work.

ETA: I know that not all parents have to or feel they have to work but the majority of my friends that are working parents do so because they have no choice and have a mortgage to pay for and they would rather be with their children. Would it not be better for housing to be more affordable so if a couple wants to have a child and be able to watch that child grow up then one wage would be enough to pay the mortgage and the bills. Most of the childless couples I know are already factoring in the nanny they are going to be paying for when they have children. That to me is crazy.

sjaypink

blue monkey, I agree, as far as the supposed 'decline' in family values etc is concerned, it is a much, much bigger issue than just marriage certificates

treliac

BuyToLie wrote: »

I am actually going to stay with my wife due to the financial enhancements of staying together.

Err.... no other reasons ?

treliac

I think most of us are agreed that two, natural, parents are best fitted to bring up children, with their best interests at heart, and this is how most children will be provided with love, security and maximum opportunity as they grow up.

Of course that doesn't mean marriage is a must, but.... every relationship hits difficult times and every relationship will be seriously challenged. In this 'easy come, easy go' life we lead now, co-habiting couples find it all too easy to move on - sometimes several times - leading to the neglect and sometimes abuse that is too frequently a feature of life for distressed and miserable children today.

Marriage, as a legal commitment, doesn't solve every problem but it does encourage some of us to think about what we are doing and to work that bit harder to make it work. And perhaps pre-marriage preparation classes should be offered as routine.

As far as social engineering goes, we have and will always have that from governments. It's what social policy is all about. There has, for too long now, been a financial disincentive to staying together as a couple and providing a stable foundation for children as they grow up.

It's about time that was changed and people were encouraged to have more responsibility for the children they bring into the world. In fact, incentives should exist to encourage people to have children only when they are ready and able to provide love and security and when they are prepared to put their children before their own selfish interests.

If that means supporting a legal contract / marriage then I'm all for it.

blue_monkey_2

Just been sitting in the bath thinking of this thread.

If a couple have children there is a chance that one parent will be at home with the children and the other be the breadwinner. If there is a tax break for couples that are married then it might mean that one parent can stay at home with the children and they can be bought up in the family. In a single parent family this cannot happen and mum will have to go back to work so the kids will inevitably be looked after by someone else.

At the moment this government more or less encourages being a single parent. I could kick my husband out tomorrow and be a whole load better off on benefits, I could invite him to 'stay' a few nights a week and we will have his wage and I'll have a load of benefits, countil tax and housing benefits and free school meals for the kids to top it up with.

Also, this govenment gives you childcare vouchers (up to £300??) so you can go back to work, never see your kids and they can be looked after by someone else. And then when the kids go off the rails they'll send you to parenting classes for free to find out why.

No wonder there is a waiting list for nurseries and childminders.

Our headteacher told us that by the end of this year is is going to be compulsary for all schools to be open for all children to be able to stay at school from 7.30am to 6pm - be it in the form of breakfast and after school clubs.

I really do have no idea why people have children but then go back to work after 6 months and see them for an hour each side of the day or sometimes not at all? Is it any wonder we have a generation of children who feel unloved so who are going out looking for 'love' elsewhere. I used to work with a woman who had 3 children, had a baby and 4 days after the birth asked if she could come back to work as she was 'ready'....

I don't know, it really bothers me that people have kids and then send them off to childminders after a few months and it does not feel that it is what a 'family' is all about. Is this where it is going wrong?

DaddyBear

I'm 100% behind this policy.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

blue_monkey wrote: »

I don't know, it really bothers me that people have kids and then send them off to childminders after a few months and it does not feel that it is what a 'family' is all about. Is this where it is going wrong?

Is it also so wrong that women should want to have the rewards of a satisfying career?

chucky

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Genuine question.

If I were to take more than one wife, for example as a practising Mormon, would I be eligible for an ISA?

Genuine answer.

you can be a [STRIKE]muscle[/STRIKE] muslim man and have four wives