"My comments are targetted at the individual who has married on many occasions not divorcing, changing their names constantly unlawfully, and moving on to their next partners, deliberately lying about their true or latest identities and pasts. Most lie about the identities of their childrens parents."

You are referring to bigamy not polygamy - had you made that clear in the first place there would have been no argument from me. No wonder people are frightened if they all think polygamy is the same as bigamy.
Bigamy is a totally different kettle of fish to polygamy.

Let's use the correct word - Polygamy is what you see on "Big Love" or what you hear about in mostly sensationalist media reports from compounds of Fundamentalists in the USA and Canada (You only hear about those when some twit who thinks he is a prophet and starts marrying all the young girls - you never hear about the thousands who live the lifestyle peacefully and don't interfere with anyone else.)

The first report is from Asia and I doubt that what is discussed there is a world wide trend and the second article is a research paper written by a woman from her point of view in 2005 - the issues she brings up about inheritance seem to be covered by laws in most states now and the rest of it sort of has a distinct feminist tone to it.

As long as that Muslim you "supported" has not registered his second or third marriage contract officially (at the Attorney General's Office) then his "marriage" is about as legal as that of the next person who has an extra marital affair. Therefore, if we are going to accuse every person who is having an extra marital affair of being in breach of Australian values then we will be accusing tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

As for the Marriage Act that will be changed if the Greens get their way and then the barn door is open as soon as the words Union between Man and Woman disappear from said act...

In fact I will go one step further and say that no one in this thread has given any sound reason why I should not be able to marry both my spouses if the law were to change. The only reasons I have seen are either moral or based on a misunderstanding of a word.

Someone may put their hand up and say "but you can only love one person!"

Not true - I love my parents, I love my Siblings, I love my Kids and obviously a lot of people love their mistresses or there would be no need for the "Mistress Law"
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/1924/its-not-just-a-new-mistress-law-family-law-act-now.aspx

Yuyutsu said;
Or if you are concerned about the public purse,

The reason for avoiding corrupted gene pools is the emotional and
physical ordeal in raising a handicapped child for the rest of your life.
Have you never seen an 80 year old mother taking her handicapped
middle aged son shopping ?
Her biggest worry; who will help him when I am dead ?
She will continue to worry when she is dead; it is just that she has
to do that worrying before she dies.

That is why cousin marriage and polyandry should be legally banned
under threat of a prison sentence.

"The reason for avoiding corrupted gene pools is the emotional and physical ordeal in raising a handicapped child for the rest of your life"

Then people need to be informed about that risk of living that ordeal. Surely it is up to each one to decide whether they want to take that risk or not.

Your idea is to throw everyone to jail, while nature already provides its own punishment!

BTW, both cousin-marriage and polyandry do not produce children. It is not the act of marriage that triggers child-birth, but perhaps you are still under-age to know that.

Are you aware that if two people really want to have a baby between them despite a jail-threat and nature's own risks, they always have the option of lying about the father's identity (and sometimes even the mother's)?

Do you also propose jail sentences for cousins who stay together unsupervised in the same room (even if they are homosexual) or for sterile/post-menopausal three-somes?

Yuyutsu;
Your last reply shows you really do not understand.

What about the frustration and difficulties of the child itself and
the life it will lead ?

Any one who knowingly takes that risk should spend many years in prison for child abuse.

Dear Bazz,

I only addressed the issue which you raised, not what you were silent about. Now that you did raise the issue of the child, let me relate to it:

First, it is the old story of the half-empty/half-full cup.
The child got his/her life from the parents, so the child owes them his/her life, not vice-versa. You seem to think that the parents should have given him/her more, but they did not owe him anything in the first place (that is, unless you also want to throw into jail those who choose not to have children at all).

Second, how can you tell that the child is frustrated and has difficulties? You are saying this from the perspective of a whole-bodied person, but the child never had that experience and knows no other existence.

Third, there are also some advantages in being disabled: for example, one never have to go to work, and one usually has no worries, one is being taken care of all their life, and being given much attention.

Fourth, I have seen handicapped persons who are very happy, always smiling and laughing, and are generally quite an inspiration to others who are full-bodied.

Fifth, it is the child's choice to come to the world and have the particular mother. If he/she does not want, they simply don't need to come. Why would they? well, we come into this world for many reasons, to experience, learn and complete different issues: how can you say that being handicapped was not just the very thing which this child needed to experience?

Sixth, according to your logic, the state should imprison anyone who allows pets and farm animals to breed, because their life is even worse than a half-human.