No, Trav, the argument is that it's none of your damned business; nor mine, nor the Churches', nor the state.

If no-one is being coerced, or their rights otherwise violated, if all parties are legally adults, then, like it or not, it ain't nothin' to do with you.

Clownfish,
The excuse of “its none of your business” was heard about abortion, and eventually the taxpayer has to pay, and eventually the country imported large numbers of immigrants to maintain the population.

The excuse of “its none of your business” was heard about de facto relationships, and eventually the taxpayer has to pay, and eventually the country had large numbers of single parent families and large numbers of disadvantaged children.

If the excuse “its none of your business” is now said about polygamous marriage, eventually the taxpayer will most likely have to pay, with associated social problems that the public has to cope with.

BTW. How will child support and property settlements be determined for polygamous marriage. How will she take her cut, and will the other wives have to pay child support, or will it just be the father (if the woman knows who the father is).

Quote -
"BTW. How will child support and property settlements be determined for polygamous marriage. How will she take her cut, and will the other wives have to pay child support, or will it just be the father (if the woman knows who the father is)."

This is already accounted for in the Family Law Act - also covered under the intestate persons regulations in several states if someone dies without a will (Google "intestate multiple partners")

This whole argument may use the word Polygamy - because that very word strikes fear because of the well publicised actions of a few fundamentalist religions. Rarely in this argument do you see references to other forms of multiple relationships such as polyandry (where a woman has more than one husband.)

If anyone is interested there more discussion on the legalities of multiple relationships @
http://polyoz.net.au/forums/community-forums/28-livin-in-the-land-of-oz/389-legal-matters

So, vanna, the taxpayer doesn't pay for children of traditional marriages? There is no such thing as the Baby Bonus, or child support?

What you really seem to be saying is that the state should apply a morality clause to benefits everyone is otherwise entitled to.

If marriage is none of my business and none of yours either, then let's recognise polygamy and incest while we're at it.

Besides Clownfish, who gets to decide what a right is? And who gets to decide what is anyone else's business?

All you're doing is trying to make yourself the arbiter of such things whilst accusing others of doing the same

Tastige
Polyandry is quite widespread, and it is costing society dearly, in the form of welfare payments. and in the number of disadvantaged children.

Under feminist law, the woman moves from one man to the next, but always taking the last man's children and his money.

I currently work with a woman who has children from 2 previous men and is currently with a third man.

Not surprisingly, she owned a house with the last man, but now she rents, and lives from one week to the next with very little money, and she can't afford any time off work for any reason.

The system of feminist polyandry eats away at finances, and the more men she is with, the less money she eventually ends up with, and the more likely the children involved will end up having to be supported by the taxpayer.

Anyone in favour of polygamy should first study the system of feminist polyandry to see what a total mess that system is in.