Posted on 08/18/2016 5:03:37 PM PDT by marshmallow
Leader of Muslim group says there is 'no reason' for polygamy not to be permitted now that same-sex unions have been legalised
The leader of the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy has said there is “no reason” for polygamy not to be legalised after the Italian government passed a law to recognise the union of same-sex civil unions.
In a Facebook status, Hamza Piccardo wrote: “There’s no reason for Italy not to accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons.
“When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims don’t agree with homosexual partnership and still they have to accept a system that allows it,” he added.
The Facebook status proved to be controversial among Italians, who are deeply divided on the issue of civil partnerships. The Italian government voted in favour of allowing civil unions between couples of the same gender, despite opposition from the Catholic Church. This gives the couples the same rights as married people under Italian law except they are not allowed to adopt children.
According to Crux, Piccardo shared a photo of the mayor of Milan celebrating the civil union between two men. Underneath it he wrote: “If it’s only a matter of civil rights, then polygamy is a civil right.”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
Yeah, Dope Francis will probably be right there holding the hand of Piccardo all the way through the process of making polygamy legal in Italy.
And then we know that at least one of our female SC justices finds the laws of other countries to be even more important than our own laws. Can’t recall which one but think it was one of the females.
One false religion wants polygamy in Italy as it is in the Middle East & parts of Africa; another false religion [the Mormons] practiced polygamy in the US & Mexico from the early 1830s on...[Mormon fundamentalists still practice it...mainstream Mormons still practice polygamy for eternity & still had sanctioned polygamists married in early 1900s who were still together up to deaths in early 1960s]
He has a point. I guess in an "anything goes" society, marriage can be anything people want it to be. Mothers marrying their sons, fathers marrying their daughters, sisters and brothers, half siblings with half siblings, as long as it's consenting adults, nobody can deny somebody else their "civil rights", right? I wonder if those idiots who fought for homosexuals to have a right to marry under the guise of people shouldn't be discriminated against "just because of who they love" ever thought the whole thing through to its unintended (maybe intended) consequences? Civilization is on its last legs.
Do all the wives get welfare?
I hate to say it, but he has a point. Why not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.