For Ayub Maftoon to conclude, "every member of the public has the right to lobby for what they believe is their legitimate and humane right" is so hypocritical considering the appalling human rights record - particularly for women - of so many Islamic societies.

Homosexuality occurs in nature, so by definition it IS 'natural'. And your statistical argument takes into account gay males but not gay females. Believe me, we're very much out there, and if all men were Muslim our numbers would swell dramatically.

As I have argued elsewhere, anyone in Australian society who wishes to see polygamy legally recognised is entitled to state their case and try to persuade others. However, if this is only going to come from religious minorities that also falsely presume male superiority over women, you're in for a very long battle, and you thoroughly deserve to lose it.

I would also point that most of the sources you cite are at least 50 years old, and western societies DO NOT condone sexual activity outside of long-term partnerships.

You need to do something about this

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b14_1215782328

before you start lecturing us !

Well said Cosmogirl, I was going to make that very point.

Though elizabeth, I've got to strongly disagree with your initial comment - judge Mr Maftoon by his words, not that tired 'but Islamic societies are BAD!'

Using that logic doesn't work. I could apply the same logic to any person from many poor African nations, or indeed, go back to the wake of WW2 and you could use it as an excuse for vilifying Germans. It wouldn't make either right, and it would have nothing to do with what they're actually saying.

Judge people by the merits of their argument, don't just dismiss the argument with such a weak device.

That being said, Maftoon's arguments are very very weak. As pointed out, he makes no mention of Lesbianism. Put simply, to make this omission is glaringly foolish and makes me think those statistics are completely unreliable. On the basis of this alone they can be dismissed, though there are other reasons as well.

He also states: "where there are extramarital sexual relationships with mistresses and girlfriends, are treated as civilised practice."

If he had made the case that these extramarital affairs occur, then perhaps he would be on stronger ground.

But I'd challenge him to point to where they're considered "civilised" practice.

That's utter rubbish. There is nowhere they are considered 'civilised practice.' They are shunned. The people who engage in them are not respected. Again, this is totally misleading.

"actively seeking out the opposite sex to have sex with them, despite having long-term sexual partners. I was initially shocked, but later found out that this was, with very small exception, a common practice in western society."

Again. Rubbish. This is not a 'real' view of western society at all.
The irony is that if he had not been so prone to exaggerating the faults of western society, he could have made a reasonable case, but instead the distorted facts lead any person with a real grasp on western society to dismiss this piece.

There seems to be some general belief, right or wrong, that human society in the 21st century is more civilized than it was in the 6th, or earlier centuries, when social rules were being appended to religious texts. For instance, in most (not all) communities today there is some degree of Government controlled welfare system for the disadvantaged, in contrast to those times.

For the “developed world” the thought that polygamy might alleviate defective aspects of current society has a whiff of the wondrous, to put it mildly.

Perhaps some elements of the legal fraternity might have enthusiasm for it. A British firefighter, with wife and children now forming a family unit, was brought before the judiciary in 2007 and found liable for the upkeep of his sperm-donor child. That was in spite of signing-off on a no-responsibility declaration at the time of his donation. Polygamous enclaves lurking illegally within the USA have given rise to unsavory litigious tangles.

In the article we hear it for polygamy. It quotes statistics in support of that, but does not have the balls to face up to modern female rights and include polyandry in discussion. Even that is also fraught with potential legal horrors. Trauma surrounding surrogate motherhood has been chilling enough.

Society in the more-developed world has enough social problems without importing concepts appropriate only to a past age. The Centre for Arabic Genomic Studies points to the fall-out from societies where women do not have equal rights to circulate in society. It quotes statistics for Saudi Arabia: generic defects in consanguineous marriage(51% of total marriages)reaches 90 per cent in some isolated communities; that 22 per thousand live babies have defects at birth, understating the problem because many such defects manifest themselves only later in development.

Polygamy, polyandry – strictly not for the birds or the boys, ever I hope, here in Australia.

Cosmogirl, applying your logic, being a lesbian is a conditioned state, not necessarily only a naturally born state, otherwise would living in a society with moslem men cause women to become lesbians. I think you need to revisit your argument.

I also think that one woman at a time is not only as much as most men can handle, but is also as much as most women can handle. That being said, it is quite evident, in many societies, that a goodly number of males have mistresses/lovers on the side. This is not only the province of the male gender either. As evidence of this, one only has to look at the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in some countries. "The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children" and in this case, also upon the wives.

David