Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would you be able to explain why I am not making no sense? I think it is very obvious that 0 income is less than any income.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by brrabbit
if polygamy is allowed, it would be more difficult to request public assistance, not easier.
So if you had one woman who was making 60K and was married to another woman and two men who were not working and she had 3 children and the other woman had a child there is 8 people in the HH of 60K. If you have one man and one woman with 4 children that 6 with an income of 60K. Which family would be more likely to qualify for assistance.
Then you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by brrabbit
But less than 0 income with 2 children. Household or not, if their marriage is not registered, the guy can always say I'm not living here, just visiting. Or that we're roommates.
You keep changing the scenario. Your responses are not relative to the current conversation.
We aren't talking about shacking up with a welfare single mother and lying about it and not reporting income or committing welfare fraud. Yes I imagine its easier to commit welfare fraud if your not married to your child's father but as I said they will eventually ask how you live with 0 income and why aren't you receiving child support then they will go after the father for child support.
You can live like that if you choose but people who commit welfare fraud aren't the type who would financially support and care for multiple spouses and children anyway.
You think those in the FLDS with multiple wives living in different homes on welfare would actually have financially supported those women and children if they just had that piece of paper. If they were upstanding citizens they would be supporting them anyway and not letting them live in squalor on public assistance.
So if you had one woman who was making 60K and was married to another woman and two men who were not working and she had 3 children and the other woman had a child there is 8 people in the HH of 60K. If you have one man and one woman with 4 children that 6 with an income of 60K. Which family would be more likely to qualify for assistance.
This scenario you just introduced. I haven't seen it in the original thread. My assumption was generally a single guy (as a more likely earner in my prior experience) and multiple gals.
Specifically to your situation here, it's very unlikely that either family is getting any assistance. 60K is considered to be too much.
I like however compare apples to apples, so let's say there are 8 people, 4 adults (2 of which are working) and 4 children. And they could register their marriage, or not... So, we could have 1 big household/family of 8 people with income of 60K, or we could have 2 families with total income of 60K... Actually, since you mentioned that only 1 women of all the adult crowd is working, it's 1 family with income of 60K and 2 adult males with income of 0... Bam! While 60K for 8 people probably would still be above poverty level, income of $0 for 2 adult males who aren't working would qualify them for food stamps and whole lot of other public assistance. Would there be questions about their 0 income? Definitely. But first, it doesn't exactly need to be 0 (it could be a little above it from part-time jobs). And second, there are legitimate people with 0 income, who live with friends and eat their food, etc. So, while it would be frowned upon, assistance probably wouldn't be denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
You keep changing the scenario. Your responses are not relative to the current conversation.
Let's keep our conversation closer to the original topic. Or you may feel free to ignore any of my posts if you think they're total junk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
We aren't talking about shacking up with a welfare single mother and lying about it and not reporting income or committing welfare fraud. Yes I imagine its easier to commit welfare fraud if your not married to your child's father but as I said they will eventually ask how you live with 0 income and why aren't you receiving child support then they will go after the father for child support.
Responded earlier. There are people with 0 income. "I live with friends and they give me shelter and food for now, but they don't have to".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
You can live like that if you choose but people who commit welfare fraud aren't the type who would financially support and care for multiple spouses and children anyway.
You think those in the FLDS with multiple wives living in different homes on welfare would actually have financially supported those women and children if they just had that piece of paper. If they were upstanding citizens they would be supporting them anyway and not letting them live in squalor on public assistance.
My tiny point was that cheating might be a little bit more difficult if they had that piece of paper, or less economically profitable. And in the end, the ladies would be a little bit more protected by law, than they are now when they don't have any status.
Last edited by Jeo123; 01-07-2016 at 08:04 AM..
Reason: Tag Fix
Absolutely not, and we should not allow anyone who has more than one wife or one husband to emigrate to the U.S.
We need more people who share OUR VALUES.
Not a single poster who's mentioned "refugees with more than 1 wife" has actually posted any kind of proof that this is actually happening. The original poster who started this nonsense scenario claimed it came from some years old article that he/she read.
IMO, there are no refugees being admitted with multiple wives, for two very realistic reasons:
very few Muslim men have multiple wives, and those that do are fairly well off, so they're unlikely to be refugees;
immigration officials would automatically reject applicants with that kind of family situation because there are so many who would like to come here that they can discriminate. It might also be considered a "red flag".
My guess is that if Muslim immigrants, whether refugees or not, are in polygamous "marriages" in the US, then they contracted those multiple "marriages" after they arrived here, and that they are in those "marriages" the very same way that FLDS members are in them: the first wife is legally married while the other wife(wives) are only "spiritually" married.
I don't see any reason that polygamy shouldn't be legal, so long as "polygamy" is understood as "marriage to more than one person at a time" (NOT just must "many wives" - which would technically be polygyny).
I would say, however, that for the sake of legal interpretations, each marriage should be considered binary - i.e., a contract between two people. Suppose, for example, that I am bisexual and I want a wife and a husband. My marriage to my wife is one legal contract, and my marriage to my husband is a different contract. My wife and my husband could also be married to each other, but this should not be necessary. (Since the contracts are binary, my marriage to my wife should not require or deny any contract between my wife and any other person.)
The system just needs to be sure that all individual contracts are mutually compatible in the multiple-marriage scenario. I could not, for example, take out a life insurance policy that gives 60% to my wife and 60% to my husband. And divorces, of course, should also apply only to contracts individually. I should be able to divorce one spouse without necessarily divorcing the other. And each of my spouses can marry others. Thus, for example, my wife could have a husband who is not married to either me or my husband.
Employee benefits and tax benefits will need to treat my spouses collectively in a way that does not add any burden to the benefits system. Thus, having more that one spouse should not place any extra burden on the government or my employer to give extra benefits. In effect, my benefits for spouses would add up to the same amount, whether I have 1 spouse or 3. It would be up to me to distribute the benefits for my spouses in a way that adds up to 100%.
I don't see any reason that polygamy shouldn't be legal, so long as "polygamy" is understood as "marriage to more than one person at a time" (NOT just must "many wives" - which would technically be polygyny).
I would say, however, that for the sake of legal interpretations, each marriage should be considered binary - i.e., a contract between two people. Suppose, for example, that I am bisexual and I want a wife and a husband. My marriage to my wife is one legal contract, and my marriage to my husband is a different contract. My wife and my husband could also be married to each other, but this should not be necessary. (Since the contracts are binary, my marriage to my wife should not require or deny any contract between my wife and any other person.)
The system just needs to be sure that all individual contracts are mutually compatible in the multiple-marriage scenario. I could not, for example, take out a life insurance policy that gives 60% to my wife and 60% to my husband. And divorces, of course, should also apply only to contracts individually. I should be able to divorce one spouse without necessarily divorcing the other. And each of my spouses can marry others. Thus, for example, my wife could have a husband who is not married to either me or my husband.
Employee benefits and tax benefits will need to treat my spouses collectively in a way that does not add any burden to the benefits system. Thus, having more that one spouse should not place any extra burden on the government or my employer to give extra benefits. In effect, my benefits for spouses would add up to the same amount, whether I have 1 spouse or 3. It would be up to me to distribute the benefits for my spouses in a way that adds up to 100%.
Do you not see how complicated this would be to rewrite law to appease a hand full of people. What would be the point. Your talking about individual contrasts. So instead of having one contract and set of laws that applies to every marriage within a state each marriage would require an attorney to write and individual contract and if additional spouses entered or left the marriage all contracts would need to be rewritten. The contract would have to define which spouse has power of attorney and for what; illness, death, specific medical conditions, legal issues, which spouse was entitled to your SS, Veterans, retirement, which spouse was entitled to a portion of your assets and responsible for your debts.
Many marriages are filled with strife which would of course increase with additional members. Every time there was a tiff or someone got jealous, someone would want to re do a contract.
Being a multiple spouse you would essentially lose any benefits of a legal marriage.
I cant even imagine divorces and the issues with children. Regardless of who the biological parents are living as one big family unit and developing love and attachments for ALL the members of your family will create new custody issues if some of those members split from the group.
Do you not see how complicated this would be to rewrite law to appease a hand full of people.
It did not took too much effort for Massachusetts Supreme court and the Supreme Court of US to override every law in the books and allow gay marriage. It's just a question of time, when a polygamy case (or a bunch of them) goes before the judicial system as well.
It did not took too much effort for Massachusetts Supreme court and the Supreme Court of US to override every law in the books and allow gay marriage. It's just a question of time, when a polygamy case (or a bunch of them) goes before the judicial system as well.
They didn't rewrite the laws they dropped the exclusion of gender just as it was done for race. Laws are still for two people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
