To everyone who harrumphed about my quote from 'Ghostbusters': I've long since discovered that the best weapon used against the prurient purveyors of puritanism is ridicule. The one thing these self-righteous prigs can't stand is being made fun of.

Frankly, this article doesn't deserve a more serious response.

The Australian government currently recognises overseas polygamous marriages.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s6.html

FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 6
Polygamous marriages

For the purpose of proceedings under this Act, a union in the nature of a marriage which is, or has at any time been, polygamous, being a union entered into in a place outside Australia, shall be deemed to be a marriage.

'What about women who want more than one husband and would like to have children to different fathers so as to enhance their offspring’s genetic variety and strengths. Any objections to that? ''

Depends whether you expect the taxpayer to continue to fund the prisons.

Hasbeen,
I would agree that a man would have to be completely bonkers to have more than one wife, especially living in our feminist society.

I can imagine the consequences.

A wife (or in androgynous feminist terms “partner”) reads a women’s magazine and decides she wants her divorce. Everything has to be sold, so that she can get what is his, and also get what is hers. She then takes “her” children and he pays child support.

Then another wife (or if they can’t make up their minds who they are they can call themselves “partner”) reads the women’s magazine and decides she wants her divorce. Everything has to be sold again, so that she can get what is his, and also get what is hers. She then takes “her” children and he pays child support.

This continues with one wife or feminist “partner” after another, until eventually he cries out in total despair and anguish “Allah, release me from this heathen feminist hell.”

It's good that the posted this on OLO as it was devoid of facts. Ben wants Taniban stay religious Government enforcing his religous views on the rest of us. His faith in his imaginary friend must be thin.

The sentiment in the title of this piece captures my thoughts exactly.

The argument put forward by homosexual and left wing lobbyists is that we need EQUALITY: That people should be able to have themselves a loving, lifelong union and that this should not be dependent on you being a male and a female. It is apparently DISCRIMINATORY to hold that marriage should be between a male and a woman.

Does anyone disagree with my assessment? If I haven't been fair, let me know how. But it seems that the people advocating change to the marriage laws always appeal on the basis of 1. Equality and 2. Taking away discrimination.

Here's the problem I see: You could use equality and discrimination equally well as reasons to allow Polygamy. This is no slippery slop fallacy; it's a fact. The same arguments used for gay marriage, broadly, can be used for polygamous marriage.

This is an important point to make because it shows with considerable force that the debate should NOT be about emotion driven appeals against discrimination. Rather, we need to consider what the purpose of marriage is (if any) and go from there. I would argue that the traditional purpose of marriage- that is, a safe haven for the raising of children- necessitates a male and female and that society and families will be better off if this idea is promoted in our marriage laws.

If that makes me a bigoted discriminator then so be it. But keep in mind that polygamists would also be justified in calling you a bigoted discriminator if you want to discriminate against them by denying them lifelong, loving unions with the two or three wives that they cherish.