Divorce Philippine Style

[Lee]

18 hours ago, Freebie said:

Plus the Saintly Gloria ex president  ( wanting a red carpet in the pearly gates ? ) gave the church special dispensation not  to pay ANY tax on monies collected here

The exemption for churches from being taxed was part of the 1987 constitution presented to President Corazon Aquino and later ratified by the plebiscite in Feb 1987.

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/#:~:text=Approved by the 1986 Constitutional,force on February 11%2C 1987.

[Maxheadspace]

On 7/22/2023 at 1:42 PM, Dave Hounddriver said:

If the matter is truly a religious objection, the church should read Matthew 5:32 and explain why the Bible makes an exception for adultery.  Since there are biblical exceptions to the no divorce concept, then I wonder what the real reason is.  I am going to guess its about money.  The only monetary gain I see is that neither the church nor the government want to support the divorced wives or their kids and the don't trust the ex to pay after he finds a new wife.  Again, just a guess because its usually about money.

Back in the old days, at least for those countries following the Magna Carta flavor of law, adultery was only a crime for the wife. But I agree with you that society has an interest in avoiding wives and children becoming destitute by divorce.  That's sort of the gist behind communities that allow polygamy.  Since men died at a faster rate than women, polygamy was a way of ensuring widowed wives were taken care of.

[GeoffH]

11 hours ago, Maxheadspace said:

Since men died at a faster rate than women, polygamy was a way of ensuring widowed wives were taken care of.

It's also why some Muslim texts talk about the capability of the husband to support a second wife as part of the criteria for having a second wife.

[Lee]

11 hours ago, Maxheadspace said:

polygamy was a way of ensuring widowed wives were taken care of.

Perhaps.

Having more than one wife increased the odds of having a male heir if the first wife didn't produce one.

[JJReyes]

2 hours ago, GeoffH said:

It's also why some Muslim texts talk about the capability of the husband to support a second wife as part of the criteria for having a second wife.

Polygamy is an early form of welfare.  With the death of many warriors in battle, the wives and children were destitute.  If a male had the financial ability, he was encouraged to take up to 4 wives.  Many marriages were with poor widows.  If the first wife did not produce a male heir, than the male child from another became the designated heir.

[Hestecrefter]

3 hours ago, Lee said:

Perhaps.

Having more than one wife increased the odds of having a male heir if the first wife didn't produce one.

But, if the first wife was fertile and produced children, but only girls, I doubt taking on more wives would increase those odds any, since the father's sperm determines a baby’s gender.

[Lee]

6 hours ago, Hestecrefter said:

I doubt taking on more wives would increase those odds any, since the father's sperm determines a baby’s gender.

So the question then becomes how far back in history was this fact known and how many men of the day would have accepted this fact and not blame the wife for not producing a male heir.

King Henry VIII seemed to have had problems in this area as I recall.

[Mike J]

10 hours ago, GeoffH said:

It's also why some Muslim texts talk about the capability of the husband to support a second wife as part of the criteria for having a second wife.

Dang, I can barely afford one.   I am sure a second would lead to bankruptcy.  

[hk blues]

5 hours ago, Mike J said:

Dang, I can barely afford one.   I am sure a second would lead to bankruptcy.  

I will admit to having had more than one, just not at the same time! 

[Hestecrefter]

5 hours ago, Lee said:

So the question then becomes how far back in history was this fact known and how many men of the day would have accepted this fact and not blame the wife for not producing a male heir.

King Henry VIII seemed to have had problems in this area as I recall.

I would say I was responding to the comment that "Having more than one wife increased the odds of having a male heir". It did not increase the odds.  Had you said men of the day believed they would increase the odds, I would not have commented.