…That’s why Muslims in Italy are demanding that polygamy be legalized. They argue that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, why can’t Muslim men have their customary multiple wives? After all, anything goes now, right?
Many thanks to Ava Lon for translating this article from Les Observateurs:
“If the state agrees to marry a homosexual, it must accept polygamy” — The new Muslim demand
August 13, 2016
In November 2012, during the debate that preceded the Taubira law legalizing homosexual “marriage”, Civitas [the new French Christian party] campaigned with the message “Today gay marriage, tomorrow polygamy.” Critics of Civitas had claimed there was no connection between the two.
The Italian news demonstrated how much the French Catholic organization was right.
The founder of the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy, the convert Hamza Roberto Piccardo, comes insidiously on social networks to ask Italy, which recognized homosexual unions as a “civil right”, to do the same with polygamy.
“If it’s only a matter of civil rights, well, polygamy is a civil right,” Piccardo wrote on his Facebook account in a comment on a photo in which the mayor of Milan, Giuseppe Sala, appears next to gay civil-union couples on 5 August.
The Muslim leader said: “I and millions of people do not approve of homosexual relationships, yet this is the law and we respect it. The persons concerned (by the law) are a minority, as are polygamous people. Society can accept all minorities.”
It must be said that Hamza Roberto Piccardo was designated in 2005 spokesman of the European Muslim Network, a lobby based in Brussels and chaired by Tariq Ramadan. One of his sons, Davide Piccardo, heads the Coordination of Islamic Associations of Milan and collaborates with the Italian version of the Huffington Post.
“I and millions of people do not approve of homosexual relationships, yet this is the law and we respect it. The persons concerned (by the law) are a minority, as are polygamous people. Society can accept all minorities.”
And this statement will be in effect only until the Muslims have subdued the infidel by using his idiocy against him.
“yet this is the law and we respect it” = takiyya
But damn, they are sharp. Using the the excesses of our culture against us.
We really are idiots. I remember when gays came out of the closet, and I wished them well. And suddenly there were these obscene marches called Gay Pride where instead of appreciating the greater acceptance and equality, they immediately began to push the envelope toward crass lewd ugliness, mocking the very people who just modified their views in a more accepting direction. It felt wrong then, it still feels wrong. Why didn’t people rise up and object? Everybody was cowed.
A likely ‘fivesome’, just imagine the offspring from those winners!
Oh dear, I suppose that could be construed as ‘racist!’
The parrallel between overt Gayness and overt Islamism is that both seek to cast the bourgoise normal of the nuclear family into the abnormal. Not all gays and not all mUslims but the leadership which is inherently militant certainly does. Thus Gay Pride marches of lewd provocative displays are the equivalnet of in-your-face Muslim “prayers” on the street followed by violence. The gays i know who are part of society keep their own privacy and contribute to the whole regardless of their sexual proclivities. They do not need not do they seek the Public eye.
It should be pointed out to them that this is an issue of equality and that they should first get their own house in order and allow Muslim women to have four husbands and to also to marry non-Muslim men.
I love it when chickens come home to roost. But are these really unintended consequences? It’s hard to believe our liberal/left establishment has never heard of sod’s law, which prompts the question: Were the consequences really unseen?
From a point of view of pure logic, the Muslims are winning this particular debate, I’d say.
By the way, watch what will happen. If they get their way on this, it will be covered in “equal” terms, i.e., women (and gays) will also be able to have up to four spouses – but we know fully well what it’ll *really* mean.
Hey, if the woman up the street wants to marry two men, how is that any of my business or yours? If the man across the way wants to marry three wmen, how is that any of my business or yours. Any marital arrangements consenting adults wish to make ought to be the their business, and theirs alone, not mine, not yours, and not the state’s. Government ought to get out of marriage altogether. None of this means that polygamous marriage is a good idea, or that such marriages will benefit society. Hell, in retrospect most monogamous marriages turn out in to be bad ideas. The point is that marriage ought to belong to the people, to the individuals involved, and not to the state.
What do Gays & Muslims have in common? First and obviously, whatever concessions we give them, both groups constantly agitate for more: more rights, more privileges, more immunities, more protected status. But there is something insidious that is not so obvious: neither group will integrate; when one or two get a foot in the door they hold it open for more of their kind to follow. If a bunch of gays reach a level where they can influence recruiting, they select other gay people before anyone else, equal opportunity be damned. The same goes in spades for Muslims.
The consequence of polygamous marriage in the west invariably means that the taxpayer has to support the spouses and the legions of children they produce.
What next? A man + 4 girls (9 years old). . . ?
Then a man + 4 boys (9 years old) . . . ?
Consenting adults, not children. The state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting marriage of children and others incapable of informed consent. The state, in my view, has no legitimate interest with regard to the marital arrangements of consenting adults.
Except for Peter’s point about benefits, above.
Somehow, I think, that at some point this doesn’t add up. What, when they run out of women – and young girls?
They have a long dark history of using young men…the only argument would be who does what to whom. I believe there are sharia rules about it.
Don’t forget it is common, and not against sharia law, to use babies and small children for your own pleasure. You are required to pay for damages if there are any…
IOW, most of the men arriving in Germany from Muslim hellholes are damaged and determined to repeat what was done to them.