In the UK: -
In the 1950’s 1 in 20 children were born outside of marriage.
In the 1970’s 1 in 10 children were born outside of marriage.
In 2008, 1 in 2 children are being born outside of marriage.

A recent survey also found that of the children born outside of marriage, 50% will lose a parent by the age of 5.

If they lose the other parent, then they are orphans or homeless. So much for the best interests of the child.

I know of no survey into whether polygamous relationships are more stable than feminist inspired relationships (where someone can flit from one relationship to another, but the woman always takes the man’s children and money), but if the trends continue, then nearly all children born in the UK will likely lose a parent by the age of 5.

Similar is happening in Australia.

There has been no ‘debate’ on polygamy, and certainly no ‘hysteria’, which is a word much misused by people to brand others who don’t agree with them. Polygamy is illegal in Australia, and that’s that.

As for Australian Muslims knowing not to “…offer a faith-based solution for a social problem…” it is good to see that Muslims are getting to realise that state and religion are separated in Australia. Some Christians, on the other hand, still believe that their ‘faith’ is enough to prevent euthanasia and abortion, as we saw on OLO yesterday.

As an individual, I don’t care how many women a man wants to burden himself with, as long as there is no official recognition; but I do care when newly-arrived people, in this case large numbers of Muslims, decide that they can change the laws of the host country.

Referring to what happens, or what might happen, in the UK by Mr. Trad will not help change Australia. The UK is seen as an ever deepening sewer and place of danger and social discontent, thanks to its permissive attitude towards immigration and Muslims. To even hint at allowing any aspect of Sharia law into a Western country shows that Islam is beginning to achieve its plan of world domination.

Mr. Trad seeks to legitimise his argument by referring to the Bible. Here he needs to be reminded again that Australia is a secular country whose Government and laws are separated from any religion.

Mr.Trad say: “From my perspective as a Muslim, I really do not wish to rock the boat. I am happy not to talk about the issue and not to disturb the status quo, because my experience is that you would rather hear about this issue from a secular perspective and seeing my bearded face discussing it is likely to polarise your views.”

So why did he write this article?

<<The Islamic teachings came at a time where polygamy was prevalent. The Koran brought the restriction down to four>>

This is the biggest lie of Muslims because Mohammad had more than four wives, a murderer of Jews and raped many females.

The claim is made by Muslims that they are concerned about chastity yet their "religion" promises them 72 virgins in paradise when they kill non-Muslims in the cause of Mohammad, or they can rape non-Muslim girls as booty. What a hypocrisy.

Polygamy in this modern age is filth. Anyone who habours such ambitions should convert to Islam and migrate to Malaysia, Saudi-Arabia or one of the many failed Islamic countries.

Women and children are far more likely to be a abused sexually, emotionally and physically outside of marriage. This did not stop our amoral social engineers from pushing for the recognition of de facto relationships as having the same legal status as marriage. Polygamy is no more immoral than fornication and adultery. They are all destructive for a society and unhealthy for kids. The abuse rates for kids without natural parents increase dramatically. Once we slip one more step down to legalizing same sex 'marriage' as perverted as it is we have completely lost any moral fortitude to stop polygamy. And who said there was not a price to pay for our own immorality and failure to protect children.

First of all if we are going to have this debate lets not pretend we are talking about polygamy. This debate is about polygyny. I don't think too many men of either Muslim or Christian faith would agree that their wife should take another husband.

Read Asne Seierstad's 'Bookseller of Kabul' to see how a first wife handled a much younger second wife - wouldn't say she was too keen on the idea but she had no rights to choose one way or the other.

The lifestyle of polygyny is only beneficial to one person; the husband.

If a man decides to have an affair or whether he takes another wife - it is all the same, just an affair sanctioned by law.

If one decides to choose a particular religious faith and is willing to make personal sacrifices to adhere to its moral codes why not just control one's amorous feelings and make an effort to keep a first marriage alive.

Polygamy - a genealogist's nightmare. :)

1) The State should get out the marriage business altogether.

1a) Where the State does not get out of the marriage business, they should ensure that there is no legal discrimination between those free contracts established by adults of rational minds.

After all, if you wouldn't want somebody else's idea of marriage forced upon you, why do you want to force your idea on to others?

Here is what another regular poster in the Muslim cause, Irfan Yusuf, has to say on the matter.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/just-how-many-people-are-behind-the-polygamy-push-20080626-2xfm.html

Quote:

"..Indeed some Muslim men, including Keysar Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association (whose members, I suspect, share the same surname and hold dinner meetings each night in the same home), have made serious attempts at it."

"It's no secret that at least one Muslim once wanted to marry a second wife. Back in October 2002, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on Mrs Trad showing her selflessness by agreeing that her husband (the very same Keysar Trad) could marry a second woman.

"Of course, there was a catch to all this. According to the Herald story, Mrs Trad would refuse to remain Mrs Trad. And in the case of my own partner, I have no doubt that Mrs Yusuf would no longer remain Mrs Yusuf were I to try the same thing. I also have no doubt that she would also take steps to ensure her Mr Yusuf wouldn't be equipped to have any kids!"

All good fun. Now a serious question.

Can anyone give a RATIONAL reason why there should be laws against polygyny?

Rational EXCLUDES the following:

--My holy book says you can't do it.

--My sect says you can't do it.

--My wife would kick me in the balls if I suggested it.

--My husband would not like it.

--My "significant other" would not like it

--I would not like it.

Just as we are going to permit gay marriage so we are going to permit polygyny.

Get used to the idea.

steven

There is a big difference between polygyny and gay marriage. Gay marriage is like any other marriage between TWO people who wish to commit to each other for life. The only difference is they are the same gender.

Reasons:

Biological - survival of the species. Probably the only real RATIONAL reason against polygamy. Diversity of the gene pool where most members of the society are not closely related to one another. (Many royal families are testatment to that).

Less rational perhaps but equally valid:

Cultural or social - my own view is that humans (like some other animal species) are not built for polygamy as a rule. While others might argue that we are victim to cultural norms and conditioning I believe that monogamy is inbuilt - perhaps instinctively in the interests of genetic diversity as stated above.

Gender imbalance - I don't think I am wrong in suggesting that those men who might wish polygyny for themselves would not be as open to their wives sharing in the same sexual freedom that they might wish to enjoy for themselves.

Polygyny also presumes that all men are not able to control their sexual urges and are unable to commit to one woman for life. Clearly they are as there is precedence.

Personally for me, there is strength in a committed relationship that flows to other facets of our society. Marriage and committed defacto relationships may not be perfect but in my view they are the best of the options available.

Keysar Trads' article was very well written and easily understandable. Mr Right and Tang have expressed their abhorance of multiply marriages per se. I can see them now, hands flailing about, sack cloth, etc. I suggest they read the article again, without their religious convictions getting the way. Kaysar has attempted to do that for his part. Very commendable. His Muslim heritage does come through abd that's fine.

Before I go into debate on this article I would like to explore why Polygamy exists. This may help to explain the prevelance of it in the Middle East. There have been other instances of polygamy throughout the ages in other areas and they have always been associated with the consequences of warlike activity. Replenishing the male population to recover from warlike activity shows why there is a heavy preference for male children in some cultures. Women were considered a burden on society. (see China today)

The Middle east stands at the southern end of the migration route between East & West. Almost every movement of peoples (BCE) between the East and West went through this fertile cresant. The constant waring between invaders and settled communities took its' toll on the male populations. As a consequence there were many women and children left without husbands and fathers.

The people and their religious practises of the area recognised that fact. The men returning from war were left to look after them, to take their brothers or neighbours wives as their own. An act of charity and decency. The practice has continued through to the present because the waring situation in the middle Eastern area has not changed.

Although warlike activity existed in the West it wasn't as frequent or as brutal. This allowed the populations of males to recover so polygamy wasn't as prevelent in these areas although it did exist.

With the rise of Pauline Christiany with with its abhorance of women. Women took away a mans focus from God.(St. Paul) If a man HAD to marry, the fewer women the better.(Pope Valintinus)

Stevenmerlyer
Why not add a few more statistics to your questionnaire?

“the number who chose to wed dropped by 10 per cent, producing the lowest marriage rates since they were first calculated in 1862.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1543355/Marriage-rates-plummet-to-record-lows.html

"This Government has removed the idea of marriage from research and public documents and from the tax and benefit system. It has taken the last remaining benefits, like inheritance tax relief when a spouse dies, and given them to other groups like homosexuals in civil partnerships."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23465208-details/Marriage+rates+hit+lowest+rate+since+records+began+almost+150+years+ago/article.do

The feminist state of no marriage is being achieved amongst Anglo Saxons in the UK, but due mainly to the decline in marriage and the children being born within marriage, dear old England asa we know it will not last for long.

“The news comes on the back of ONS figures announced yesterday which predicted the UK population could reach 71million by 2031, with migrants and their UK-born children accounting for 69 per cent of that growth.”

“Nearly all births to Pakistani women and 80 per cent to Indian families are within marriage.”

Continues from previous

Marriage didn't start coming into Civil law until after Van Dykes famous painting "the marriage." previous to that marriage was a church affair for aristocracy or by common decree for commoners. Apparently the Aristocrasy went around bedding maidens on demand with no consequences for the children of the union. This painting changed that and the change in civil law made them responsible for the care of the women and children. (First womens rights)

Now to my opinion on the issue.

Multiple marriages are deemed undesirable by Western society. Which is the society which we, in the West, live within. Our Society is set up to cope, within the legal system, to deal with only one wife at a time. Regardless to the fact that individuals make private decisions to engage in sexual unions with others outside their legal marriage. This may or may not be condoned by other party to the marriage. Most Western women are extremely jealous of even the thought of another women, let alone a second wife.

Due to the Culture differences between the Middle East and the West. Multiple marriage within a monogamous society would be extremely hard to accommodate. Western society and its' Law would find it dificult to tolerate and administer. Not so in Middle Eastern society because they have had thousands of years of experience in dealing with multiple marriages. Middle Eastern women on the other hand endure hardships that Western women connot even contemplate, so they need as much help and support with housework and children as they can get. Not to mention company for each other because women in the middle East are shut away from the world by their menfolk, for their own protection.

Lev writes
'The State should get out the marriage business altogether.' If you believed this you would not have the homosexual lobby calling for State recognition.

Nice try Keysar;

1) Adultery is not illegal and if you can't contain your passion you can always stray with your wife's consent.

2) Children born our of wedlock face no stigma these days. Their rights are explicitly protected by article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights.

There are a couple lemmas that follow from your argument:

"a union of one man with more than one woman" are you sure you mean that? That implies that the wives are also married together. Or do you mean that a man can be in multiple unions with individual women at the same time.

"In practice many people support simultaneous amorous relationships with more than one partner." What if one of the wives fancies another bloke should he join the union too? Before we know it we'll all be married together.

"Some Muslim scholars estimate that only 1 per cent of men in Muslim societies make a legally recognised commitment to more than one wife. This suggests that the religious teachings reduce the incidence of plural relationships." Does it really? Could it be that the others are just adulterers? Or perhaps they can't afford a separate house for each wive? Or perhaps muslim women aren't the walkovers they are made out to be.

I think you should rethink your arguments before you try again.

You disgust me Keyser.Why OLO gives you oxygen,is beyond me.

Trad,before you Muslims came to Australia you would have known that we live in a secular democracy where men and women have equal rights.Regardless of what you may feel about your Koran as the source of all your wonderful laws the laws of this country are made by the elected rfepresentatives of this country. We wiil never entertain any laws that are based on your religious laws.Why should you expect us to? Just because you all have decided to descend on the secular democracies of this world you want us to accept your laws for your governance.By now those Muslims who have lived long enough in our secular democracies and find our laws intolerable why dont you all go back to where you came from instead of expecting us to let your laws become part of our legal fabric. What is there so wrong in us wanting to preserve what is our? You have every right to want to preserve your laws and to submit to them because they come from Allah and they are so beautiful and reasonable for you lot.That's fine. Yes.You have every right...but not in our homelands.

socratease

Did anyone notice the media photo of Kaiser Trad and his current/existing wife, taken presumably on the porch of their home.

Ms. Trad is in all her trussed up finery with both hands in scrunched up tight fists, as though she is about to job someone.She looks totally pissed off .... well after 9 kids and living with him it would be understandable

But then one should go easy on Trad, after all he is only doing what the Koran and the well documented deviant behaviour of their prescious prophet requires them to do.

What was that about consummating a marriage to a 9 year old and having many wives as well as all the conquests stemming from his constant warmongering across the deserts, raping and pillaging.

All now enscapulated in sharia law, which they say we should be adopting as part of modern law. Sicko stuff.

Well, if we're going to play the holier-than-thou game, I guess I'd rate adultery as a far worse moral offense and a far greater personal betrayal than polygamy.

Polygamy and polyandry (for that matter) require openness, honesty and a commitment to look after the wellbeing of all the spouses. Everybody knows where they stand. It's public, it's declared, it's transparent. I knew a fellow in Indonesia who had three wives. He was the most hen-pecked man I ever met. He looked after all his wives and children and worked round the clock to do it. I wouldn't be him for quids.

Whereas adultery is a cheap, dishonest and degrading business for all concerned. Two people cheating on a third who is duped and dishonoured by lies and concealment and who deserves better.

Adultery is very prevalent in our society, and quite widely tolerated, even admired with a wry grin, a sly wink and a nod at those who can get away with it. Whereas polygamy is reviled as barbaric and backwards.

Go figure.

*Polygamy in this modern age is filth. *

It is? I would be more concerned with two of them nagging, that
would be beyond me :)

Hey, today, if somebody wants a bit of hanky panky, its easily
available, no need to get married.

I am against it as next thing those on social welfare payments will
want extra payment for the extra wife and kids.

If a bloke can afford to pay for two females, he might as well just
have a mistress. Not make taxpayers cough up for his love life.

Seeing Mercurious post reminded me of when I lived in Malaysia for a few years.

I had a mate that had four wives. His reason for four wives. I Quote.

"One wife is not enough for a man. The woman has too much work to do in the house. She wants me to do womans work. Two wives are no good because the two women fight the man all the time. There is no peace for me. Three wives are no good because no one is happy. Two wives pick on the third wife, then change, two wives pick on the other wife. If I say anything all pick on me. Four wives, everybody happy All wives get on together. Talk, talk, talk together. they do the housework, look after the children and leave me alone. It is peacefull. Very good life."

Please read my first two posts again. It may help remove some of the bigotry that is plainly present in some of the posts.

"The term polygamy..is gender neutral in that it does not give preference to one gender over another but includes relationships between one person of either gender and more than one of the other gender."

As pointed out by Pelican, it is completely disingenuous of you, Keysar, to state that the term polygamy is gender neutral and as such should be considered as an acceptable choice in modern secular society. History clearly demonstrates that in reality it is not at all a gender-neutral split, but that polygyny is far more commonly practised than polyandry.

I do not have the moral or religious qualms that many of the posters here do, but on the grounds of gender inequality alone, I strongly object to such a proposal. Marriage and de facto relationships, however imperfect, do at least allow both partners to have an equal share in power and decision-making. When a man has more than one partner, the power balance is very unlikely to remain equally poised between both genders.

I guess in theory a man with two wives might agree to a one in three hold on power and allow power to be distributed evenly between the three parties. In reality, I would suggest it far more likely that the man maintains a one in two share of the power with the balance being split between the two women. Quite apart from the issue of two women being obliged to share one man, there is nothing fair about such a power split.

I believe we can learn from Islamic culture, just as we can from all cultures, and see merit in some of the Islamic practices relating to borrowing and the repayment of loans for example. But I see no benefits for women in the idea of introducing polygamy into Western society; on the contrary it would just result in further repression and exploitation.

Jayb

Thank you for giving the debate some interesting historical perspective. I can see the reasons why polygamy might have existed in the past, and to a lesser extent in Middle Eastern societies today, but see no justification for it here.

HRS

"I know of no survey into whether polygamous relationships are more stable than feminist inspired relationships (where someone can flit from one relationship to another.."

Since when has flitting from one relationship to another been 'feminist inspired'?

"The feminist state of no marriage is being achieved amongst Anglo Saxons in the UK.."

Again, since when has the 'state of no marriage' been the fault of feminism?

It's about time you got that almighty chip off your shoulder, HRS. And if you can’t manage that, at least start producing some evidence to back up your outlandish statements.

Feminism is not responsible for infidelity within relationships. Infidelity has always existed and largely I might add been the province of male behaviour. The difference now is that women are as likely as men to be involved in it. I guess that’s equality for you.

You can blame feminism all you like. It's really just another example (along with binge drinking, smoking, aggressive driving, going to war, etc) of women adopting largely male behaviours that once most of them had the good sense not to.

Thanks Bronwyn

"I can see the reasons why polygamy might have existed in the past, and to a lesser extent in Middle Eastern societies today, but see no justification for it here."

I agree, for a start the upkeep on two wives would be prohibitive. But seriously, It's just not in the general Western Culture (Australian)to have multiple wives.

"Infidelity has always existed and largely I might add been the province of male behaviour. The difference now is that women are as likely as men to be involved in it."

I think women have always been just as involved as men. It's was just not nentioned in poolite society.

"I would suggest it far more likely that the man maintains a one in two share of the power with the balance being split between the two women."

I think that this is debatable. On the surface men seem to have the power. But, & I know it's the butt of many jokes, the real power in a marriage lies with the woman. If they can't get their own way then they say that the're abused. In a lot more cases then is admitted. Having two wives? See my last post.

"But I see no benefits for women in the idea of introducing polygamy into Western society;"

You are right. I don't really see any benifits for either gender in Australian Culture.

Bronwyn has the most considered and rational response to this issue. As opposed to Philip Tang's anti-Muslim filth or Runner's obsession with homosexuality which would probably find its way into any conversation ("gays are responsible for traffic jams on the M5" - you get the idea).

The problem with polygamy (not an exclusive Islamic institution) or adult-child marriages (practised by English royality only a few centuries ago) is their inherent inequality. Sure, those like Trad will give lip service to polyandry but that would still constitute inequality and is not likely to be allowed by sexist husbands. This makes polygamy (and adult-child marriages) qualitatively different from same-sex marriage or marriage as it currently stands in this country.

However, if we're going to invoke tradition, why not bring back the death penalty for adultery? It says in the Bible that capital punishment is appropriate for adultery and the former head of the Church of England used it against two wives. What do people think?

The "ideal" is a monogamous union, however in this imperfect world polygamy might be a good "second best" arrangement for adults who want to be part of a family but are unable to attract a mate of their own. I think that children would have a more stable family life in a polygamous arrangement instead of a single mum with no contact or acrimonious contact with dad arrangement.

Quite sure the average Aussie bloke would be hen-pecked think "Witches of Eastwick" with Jack Nicholson and Susan Sarandon.

Keysar Trad has supported Sheik Hilali through think and thin, espousing that females of anglo ancestry deserved to be raped if they do not submit to the Muslim perception of what is acceptable dress.Keysar has also espoused that Australians are nothing but the scum of convict ancestry and that this country was stolen from the Aborigines and thus we do not have legal tenure of a land they perceive as being up for grabs.

If you have any doubts about this insidious philosophy that requires a total subjgation of personal beliefs,then study carefully the Koran and it's lunatic founder Mohammad,who took a child bride of 9yrs.Today we call them paedophiles.

Before the socialist revolution in 1949, China was steeped in superstitions and poverty brought about by centuries of feudalistic practices.

The revolution brought a reform in education (based on science and the scientific thought) the West can only dream about. Discrimination against women (i) the practice of abandoning baby girls in the street to die, (ii) polygamy, gradually faded away. Women and men are given the same rights.

http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/14.3/cheng.html

http://links.org.au/node/466

Many Muslims are smart enough to leave their failed-Islamic countries to come to the West, but are either silly or not having the courage to leave this totalitarian ideology called Islam invented by a psychopath. Instead they are advocating the practice of this barbaric male-hegemony.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55077&sid=241befe124331337a17687f4da5f257b

As Tawfik Hamid, the secular Muslim said, polygamy and child-abuse (pedophilia) are part and parcel of Islam http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019659.php

“Take My Wives, Please: Polygamy Heads West” warns the West of the Islamist threat. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/take_my_wives_please_islamic_p/

A positive sign are that the West is waking up to the Islamic threat, ‘The Telegraph reported in 2004 that Ireland “has ordered all men from Islamic countries seeking residency to sign a sworn affidavit rejecting polygamy.’

The best policy so far by the West is that by Germany, “Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats on Wednesday said they would like to see Germany take on thousands of refugees from Iraq. The hitch? They only want the Christians.” http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,556144,00.html

Trad,you are trying to take refuge in subterfuge when you lie that muslims who have multiple wives do not indulge in extra-marital affairs. You think none of us have lived in Dubai,Kuwait or that we dont know Muslims from these countries who visit the UK,Holland, Belgium, germany and France and see what these "respectable" and faithful husbands are up to when they travel overseas REGULARLY ON BUSINESS or to visit relatives who they later say have shifted residence. They are a lot of philanderers and their wives are beginning to find them out. You know what I'm talking about.

What appeals most of all to Muslims like Keyser Trad is the prospect of four wives each having 4-5 kid.That arrracts a lot of child endowment and spouse allowances.Nice try,Keyser Trad.That alone is enough a reason that has brought thousands of Muslims of your sort to countries like Australia.The parasitic life was too great to resist.

Let me also tell all our readers that Keyser Trad does not speak for ALL Muslims.I know many Muslim families who are embarrassed by the leaches like him and openly now distance themselves from his demands. The modernised and progressive Muslim who has benefitted most by a liberal education and has lived in secular democracies want nothing more than the chance to share our laws and customs and bring up their children free of the taint of hypoccrisy and ingratitude. Keyser Trad, you represent only a certain kind of Muslim who does not deserve a place in our secular and democratic community with your outrageous demands.You will only serve to get them all hated and treated with contempt that we now treat you, you parasite and leach.

socratease

How funny, I read the article and the posts while watching 'big love' on SBS. It's about Mormons. Not a Muslim in sight.

And remember the mob in Texas, they're not Muslim either. Lots of wives, lots of girl brides and many, many children.

Anyway, it's a wonder that the bloke in Utah in 'big love' has time to earn a living, he's so busy keeping the peace in his households!

Our divorce rates are appalling, which probably means that it's not easy making a marriage work with TWO people. Imagine the difficulties with more than two. Why would anybody want to take that on?
'

Bronwyn,
One of the main problems for the anglo-saxon race in the UK, is that it won’t exist for much longer.

Nature has a rule, populate or perish, and looking at the statistics, anglo-saxons in the UK have forgotten how to populate.

They have killed too many children in abortion clinics, and killed too many marriages in family law courts.

The anglo-saxon race in the UK no longer produces enough children, and will cease to exist in a few decades. They will be taken over by a number of other races that do not kill their children in abortion clinics, or kill their marriages in family law courts.

Interesting how so many feminists have supported abortion clinics and family law courts, but I guess they will regret it in a few decades.

The sad part is that our selfish generation could not care less. As long as we can sleep with who we like and take no responsibility we could not care less about future generations. In a couple of generations time the immoral social engineers will be rotting in hell (unless they repent) while future generations will be reaping what we have sown. Hopefully we will wake up in time and start to obey our Creator instead of listening to pathetic excuses for gods who think they know better.

*Nature has a rule, populate or perish, and looking at the statistics, anglo-saxons in the UK have forgotten how to populate.*

Nature also has a rule, if you keep populating, eventually the
whole lot perish. You can't just keep adding more billions and
billions. If its not sustainable, eventually the crunch comes.

Personally I have no problem with the world's population
eventually turning light tan. So what?

There is nothing wrong with a potpourri of genetics, in fact
there are major advantages.

Steven Meyer talks about "the Muslim cause". What on earth is that? is it the same as "the Christian cause"? Is there such a thing? Or has Meyer forgotten to take his Lithium Carbonate tablets again?

Arjay claims Muhammad married a 9 year old girl. Seriously, Arjay, are you telling us Muhammad was a Christian priest?

Not content with demonising Muslims, Philip Tang appears to white-washing the murderous comunist regime China which came to power in 1949.

Mao Zedong is on record as the greatest mass murderer in history. His regime engineered a famine in 1959 that killed over 30 million people (read the Black Book of Communism). After that, he instigated a civil war called the Cultural Revolution that killed around 9 million people. The poverty and suffering of the Chinese people under the warlords and Chiang Kai-Shek was nothing compared with their tribulations under Mao. And now in China there is a one-child policy causing demographic chaos as female babies are aborted in favour of sons. So much for women's equality.

In order, the greatest murderers in modern history are Mao, Stalin and Hitler. None of them were Muslim.

If you want to single out Muslims as polygamous, sexist, child molesters and murderers, have a look at the Bible some day and read about some of characters Jews and Christians look up to. It is definitely a book unsuitable for children. And while we're on the topic of religious violence and sexism, you might also like to look at how women fare in Hindu India - especially in more conservative rural areas.

Yvonne,

From official Mormon website

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reiterates that it has no affiliation whatsoever with any polygamous groups, including the polygamous sect in Eldorado, Texas. The Church discontinued polygamy officially in 1890, but more than a century later some news and Internet reports fail to draw clear distinctions between the Church and practicing polygamous sects.”

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/clarifying-polygamy-confusion

Unfortunately, not a single Islamic religious teacher dare to speak against the practice of polygamy.

Scientifically polygamy is untenable because the birth gender ratio for male:female is 105:100, i.e. for every 100 baby girls that are born, there are 100 baby boys. However, it is difficult for the male Islamists to understand the implication of this fact because they hardly think above their waist

Polygamy is illegal in Australia. If some sections of society don't like it then leave. Australia will be better off without you.

Theres also a story that Mohammed got angry and had a woman stretched out between horses and pulled apart.
Nice guy.
What a founding father for a religion?
I heard that story at a seminar of Islam and its foundations and of Islams terrorism movements.
They want Australia you know?
Theyve been storing up guns for Jihad for years and Indonesia has plans to take all of the land north of Townnsille QLD as "SOUTH IRIAN" (NZ too).

I heard another story that Idi Amin had one of his wives' limbs amputated because she had his child aborted.
He didnt kill her, just had doctors remove her limbs so she couldnt function...then he left her like that.
This and the Mohammed story is what happens when people refuse to accept a loving God as their Lord and go for the satanic. You wont find committed Jesus' followers, despite their human weaknesses, slamming planes into buildings, storing up guns for an overthrow of a democarcy or abusing their women.

Stevenlmeyer,
I have been waiting for someone to answer your question with rational reasons against polygamy. The only one that comes close to rational is the last one about gender imbalance if we all partook in polygamy.

Basicly, I see little wrong with it providing all are willing participants and not presured in any way. As Mercurius said, it is far more honest than adultary. But I think it will only work in societies where the male is lord and master and the wives are completely subservient.

I can see too many practical problems for me to even consider it. Like spending time sorting out demarkation disputes instead of fishing or playing golf. Do they all live together or in seperate houses?

The biggest loser would be wife Number 1. The early years in most marriages are the toughest. Making do and loan repayments, etc. leave little for personal pleasures. It would only be when they are better off would he think about another wife, just when wife number 1 could start to enjoy hoidays or cruises, etc. Wife 1 would be understandably resentfull as she has done all the hard yards when they had little and low income. She probaby was also a big help to them becoming more affluent. From her point of view wife 2 is not only taking time with her husband but getting the benefits of their now more comfortable life. Then when the husband dies, she will have to share the estate equally with wife 2.

There is little doubt in my mind that wife 1 is losing out badly and she should have right to veto.

Are there any other real reasons against polygamy? See Stevenlmeyers post on page 2.

This topic has flushed out the sanctimonious cultural elites.

Sounds like a hangover of the colonialist paternalists, together with their swelling band of blowhards with deep seated Cassandra complexes who have joined their ranks... 'they are heathens and savages and we know best as we are THE MORAL standard of civilised society, because WE SAY SO.' Pfffft.

Funny how its apparently wrongs for 'them' to bring their polygamist ways into 'our' country, with its monogomy, established after expanionist land-grabbers came here and banged the indigenous polygamous tribalists over the head with their Cassnadra complexes of higher morality. Prententious twaddlers. Double pfffft.

Methinks that these topics that cast a pretentiously sanctimonious eye over other cultures is little more than veiled, plausibly deniable bigotry. It is the cultural pracitice of OUTSIDERS that is being judged, never OUR cultural practices. Then again its easier to criticise others for our own failings.

The cultural practices being questioned to the point of vilification are always aimed at the same groups... moslems/arabs, asians and aborigines. Them a-rabs oppress women thru polygamy (but its ok for white bread to have 3 boyfriends/girlfriends), them asians kill whales (but nary a whisper about our white scandanavian brethern who do it and lets not save the endangered dugong hunted by the traditional land-owners, for obvious reasons) and them aborigines cant control their drink and rape 12yr olds).

Double-plus pffffft.

Hypocrites, have another latte.

Over the years I've had a couple of wives, but not simultaneously. Having one wife at a time was bad enough - I can't imagine why any man living in a Western society would want to be burdened with more than one!

Maybe that's why so many of us these days eschew the whole outmoded institution, in favour of partnerships with equals. Mind you, I did have a feminist girlfriend back in the 80s who declared frequently that she'd like to have a wife... after she'd been one herself and rejected the whole patriarchal notion, of course. And then there's the gays who oddly wish to opt in to an anachronistic institution that fails around half the time among straight participants.

When I was a fieldworking anthropologist I worked in a tribal society where polygyny is still common and legal. In that society, the practice made economic and political sense (for men anyway) since the major function of women was to produce children, sweet potatoes and pigs.

In such a situation, marriage still serves its original function as the legitimate method of exchanging women between corporate groups of men, but that's hardly the case in a more complex, advanced and liberal society like we have in Oz, is it?

Banjo

You don't need polygyny to cause gender imbalances.

In China and, increasingly, in India, we find a surplus of males because of the habit of aborting female foetuses. It's called "sex selective abortion."

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion_and_infanticide

Pelican,

Polygyny is not likely seriously to limit human biodiversity.

A far more serious problem is cousin marriage. Geneticists usually understate the dangers of first cousin marriage. In Western societies where first cousin marriage is rare, there is little danger in marrying your first cousin. The geneticists are correct.

But in some Muslim cultures families have been marrying nothing but first cousins for generations with obvious and wholly bad repercussions.

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1578374/Pakistanis-%27ignore-dangers-of-cousins-marrying%27.html

"Mrs Cryer raised the issue two years ago after research showed that British Pakistanis were 13 times more likely to have children with disorders than the general population."

There is some slight evidence to suggest that, after a while, this degree of inbreeding results in lower average intelligence. In other words, the overt genetic disorders may only be the tip of the iceberg.

I have still seen no RATIONAL reason to prohibit polygyny.

To repeat what I wrote previously, the following are NOT rational reasons:

--My holy book says you can't do it.

--My sect says you can't do it.

--My wife would kick me in the balls if I suggested it.

--My husband would not like it.

--My "significant other" would not like it

--I would not like it.

Steven,
Please read the first paragraph of my post again. I did not say that polygamy was a cause of gender imbalance. I am aware of the situation in China and India, but I found your link interesting never the less.

Like you I would like someone to post rational reasons for prohibiting polygamy. I outlined some practical reasons why I would not consider it and I said that I think that wife 1 would be a big loser. But neither are reasons not to allow polygamy between willing participants.

Maybe we may have to go to Hansard of the original debate in Parliament, when ever that was, to find the reasons it was banned then. Could be for religious reasons or simply a carry over from British law.

Banjo,
I can think of a reason to outlaw polygamy, inter-clan warfare.

Many aboriginal tribes practiced polygamy, and also had arranged marriages and child brides. However if one man had a number of wives, it meant that other men had none. So groups of men from one tribe would often kidnap women from other tribes, sometimes leading to tribal warfare.

Polygamy can also become incestuous, because there is less genetic variation occurring within a population.

At the opposite extreme, we have the current situation, where so many children do not know who their father is, and there was a case in the US where a woman suddenly discovered that her neighbor across the street had children from the same father, through IVF.

Banjo,

You raise an interesting point about wife 1. Or, more accurately, spouse 1 since polygyny would include multiple husbands / wives.

I realised that at the back of my mind I assumed that the parties would have to say UP FRONT whether they reserved the right to take other partners.

I think this is essential. When wife 1 marries husband 1 both parties have to state whether they wanted to be free to take other partners.

The conventional polygyny model is one husband multiple wives. However why couldn't it be multiple husbands and wives? I mean, for example, a family with 4 men and 2 women?

My feeling is that even where polygyny is allowed the norm will continue to be either no marriage or one husband one wife at a time.

In this country we have strong laws against sexual discrimination. If we legalize polygamy we also have to legalize polyandry.

Just consider this scenario. A man has four wives. Each of his wives has three other husbands, a woman's legal right. We would consider this fair. This is continued throughout our society. What a mess. How could we set up any sort of household on this basis? Amongst other things I would hate to have to drive the geneological software.

No it has to be rejected on practical grounds for our society.

Bozo Dagwood quotes myself," Mohommad married a nine yr old girl" are you telling me that Mohammad is not unlike a christian priest?Bozo insinuates that all Christain priests are paedophiles.Mohommad is the pinnacle of Muslim behaviour.His behaviour is what all Muslims should aspire towards.There is nothing in the modern testament that suggests that Jesus took child brides or approved of violence and murder to achieve his aims.

Christians centuries later, may have perverted his philosophy but the actions of Mohammad are clearly stated in the Koran.Jihad by violence is the objective and the solution.
It matters not whether Jesus or Mohammad were painted true to their colours.What matters is the overall philosophy that is portrayed in both the Koran and the Modern testament.They are antipodes apart.

Keyser Trad,are you in touch with all these posts on your question why the state should proscribe polygamy whereas it condones informal polygamy?

The answer is quite simple and you are supposed to be an intelligent and highly educated man. Regardless of what any previous discussions were in any parliament and any previous social mores and customs in the past, if we TODAY decide that we do not condone polygamy then any previous dalliance with the proposition is of no consequence.We move on in our secular democracies. Islamic laws belong to ancient history because of religious adherence and hence there can be no evolutionary progress that are in tune with our present world views. Your laws cannot change.You think that our laws should change and be replaced by your archaic laws based on the Koran which you hold to be immutable.

Furthermore you people believe that a man can legitimately marry an 11 year old girl. That would make him a paedophile in our country.Your Prophet Muhammad married a little girl, did he not?And you think that was ok.If he had done that today in any one of our democratic countries today he would have be arrested because he would have been found guilty of statutary rape and be considered a paedophile.Would you also be pressing at some future date for such marriages to be also legalised just because you people think it should? All those who think like like that are latent paedophiles looking for social acceptance in our democratic secular democracies whereas we are more humane and protect the virginity of our children whereas you dont.Your male sexual appetites know no bounds of decency and respect for innocence.
A Muslim man may legally take unto himself 4 such girls if he so chooses couldnt he? And you think this should also be accepted by all of us do you?Your demands are totally obscene.

Do you know Yemen is considering banning the marriages of girls?It shows that such changes are not immutable if they are deemed to be proper.Are the Yemenis haram for that?

socratease

CJ

“Having one wife at a time was bad enough - I can't imagine why any man living in a Western society would want to be burdened with more than one!”

It’s good to see you back, CJ, so good in fact that I think I can dismiss the above statement as tongue-in-cheek provocation and let it pass!

Stevenlmeyer

“I have still seen no RATIONAL reason to prohibit polygyny.”

If gender inequality is not a rational enough reason for you, Steven, then I can only assume you are so blinded by male chauvinism that you either don’t recognize feminist logic when you see it, or you do but refuse to acknowledge its worth.

By the way, Steven, who appointed you as arbiter of this debate?

Banjo

“The only one that comes close to rational is the last one about gender imbalance if we all partook in polygamy.”

I know we’re mere females, Banjo, but we do have names!

“Like you I would like someone to post rational reasons for prohibiting polygamy. I outlined some practical reasons why I would not consider it and I said that I think that wife 1 would be a big loser. But neither are reasons not to allow polygamy between willing participants.”

Aren’t they? The second one, in my book, is a very valid and rational reason for not allowing polygamy.

I don't know so much about equal power in relationships. By what
I've seen, females, in their younger years anyhow, hold the
upper hand. When she says "no", he of course has to accept.

Some women do misuse this power, to their advantage.

A second wife might mean that whilst one says "no", the
other might say "yes", so women would lose so called
"pussy power" which they have now, in relationships.

Sorry, but that is calling a spade a spade.

Keyser, you’ve cracked open the can and I thank you for being so quick to jump on the gay bandwagon with your demand for polygamy to be legitimized.

Spotting the cracks in our social systems, with marriage now wide open for interpretation, should be our new national pastime. Cheers!

I will pull you up on a few little matters, though.

For starters: the acceptance of polygamy in the Muslim countries.

(1) Most Muslim countries do not support polygamy.
(2) Where it is already not banned outright debate rages over it’s right to exist. There is widespread recognition that it is a failed model of social justice, exposing women to exactly the kind of abuses that was designed to prevent.

In Indonesia (already limited by law in practice):

http://islaminmodernity.blogspot.com/2006/12/indonesia-wants-to-ban-polygamy.html

Iraq: http://www.iwpr.net/?p=icr&s=f&o=336517&apc_state=henpicr

While you are being honest, come clean about what the Qu’ran demands of you as the male head of up to four households. The Australian government might eventually succumb to supporting multiple unions and the offspring that result (taking care of your financial and legal obligations), however, it will still be up to the husband to be unscrupulously fair to the wives and show impartiality to all. Admitting the sheer impossibility of this superhuman task, the Muslim must remain monogamous.

Some navel gazing might be in order Keyser, what with all your media commitments, and fulfilling your marital duties with Wife No. 1 ...

(....cont)

(cont.)

On the biblical requirement of monogamy, then I think you could argue that God is nothing but pragmatic and extremely forgiving.

There is the small matter of re-labelling to begin with:

Polygamy = adultery.

I agree that many marriages are struggling under the strain of this particular burden. However the solution to adultery is not to legalise adultery as polygamy.

Do not look past Jesus’ words on this topic (Matthew 19):

8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Monogamy is upheld as God's design, His will, and His expectation for His people.

But this is a teaching for Christians (the Australian Government permitting men with multiple wives to enter this country without dissolving those relationships and insisting on one wife, as disagreeable as that concept may be to some, could also be argued to be sound practice biblically).

And, yes, the OT ‘authorized’ polygamy (the Mosaic Law specifically refers to it) and even 'demanded' the practice (especially in the case of levirite marriage), but this is not something God wants us to do, except in extreme situations

Chechnya poses one of those extreme situations. Granted, the call to legitimize polygamy comes from the fundamentalist Wahabist sect, surely it would be heartless to ignore the plight of “10 million lonely women”, and pre-supposing that our modern methods (Russian dating websites) can’t find earnest international husbands for them in the meantime, who can blame the Russians for jumping all over the idea of polygamy as the answer:

“We must welcome (this idea) and spread (polygamy) for the whole Russia because we have 10 million lonely women.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jan/06011308.html

Just remember, that God does not encourage the practice, and in fact abhors it. Never forget the principle in the face of our own moral weaknesses.

Mr Trad go back to Lebanon.

Bronwyn: << ...I think I can dismiss the above statement as tongue-in-cheek provocation and let it pass! >>

Thanks Bronwyn - and well-spotted :) Of course, if I'd wanted to be really provocative I'd have mentioned the issue of the proliferation of mothers-in-law for any man silly enough to want more than one wife!

Seriously, I think that much of the kerfuffle that goes on about marriage could be dispensed with if we recognise that it has become a largely symbolic religious ritual in our society. If "marriage" was recognised as that, rather than as a binding partnership contract between a man and woman, then the various religious institutions that have so much to say about it could do what they like.

The legal rights of participants in such arrangements should be separated from the religious aspects, via the expansion and implementation of civil union regulations in order to accommodate, for example, co-wives and gay partnerships. Such regulation could quite easily deal with issues like property rights and child support.

Given the increasing diversity of our culture and the concomitant diversification of partnership arrangements between consenting adults, surely such changes to marriage regulation are both inevitable and desirable?

Here's some simple maths about polygamy.

Pretty-much equal numbers of boys and girls are born.
But Polygamy allows one man to take responsibility for several wives and support several sets of children.

What happens to the other unmarried males?

In Middle-eastern countries, they are usually dead. The violence on the streets and the carnage of conscripted soldiers takes a horrific toll on men only. Women are protected.

Otherwise, the men that remain unmarried and childless are those too poor to attract and support a wife and children. Darwin's natural selection.

But virtually all women get marrried and watch their kids grow up. Good life for a Muslim woman - better than being killed or dying as a male virgin.

In Western cultures, there is a constant bleating about 'attractive, professional women being unable to find a man. "Commitment-phobia"! But what it really is is a result of "winner-takes-all" divorce-law and the strength of feminism... so that even married men are exploited by their dominant wives. Many single professional men are simply saying "no" to marriage and kids in the first place.

Google the "MARRIAGE STRIKE" and find out more.

Bronwyn
IVF is a form of polygamy, where 1 man has progeny spread amongst several women, although he may not be living with these women.

So why should a feminist not support polygamy if the man is living with the women, (and at least the children know who their father is) but support IVF when the man is not living with the women (and the children do not know who their father is).

Also why haven't you called C.J Morgan a misogynist, after saying several negative things about wives.

"You wont find committed Jesus' followers, despite their human weaknesses, slamming planes into buildings, storing up guns for an overthrow of a democarcy or abusing their women."

That logic only applies if you assume that those who do such things and claim to be committed Jesus' followers are not actually so. I'm not sure if anybody calling themselves a christain has yet slammed a plane into a building deliberately (but then only one group of people calling themselves muslim have done so, hardly a widespread practice).

Certainly there have been people calling themselves christain who have stored up guns in opposition to government and plenty who have abused women. Some have committed other acts of terrorism.

Their actions don't make all christains terrorists just as the actions of extremists don't make all muslims terrorists.

R0bert

HRS/Timkins: << Also why haven't you called C.J Morgan a misogynist, after saying several negative things about wives >>

Two reasons at least:

(i) Unlike some miserable souls, Bronwyn has a sense of humour

(ii) She knows I'm anything but a misogynist. Having an antipathy to an outmoded ritual like marriage is not the same as having one to women in general.

Keysar seems reasonably enlightened compared with some of his bearded brethren, but he fails to make a case for polygamy simply because of widespread "infidelity", and the challenges from the gay community to the very sensible concept of marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman.

However, I do have a couple of suggestions for Keysar.

1) Campaign actively to get gay marriage legally accepted in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. After his successful campaign, he then can have a go at polygamy in Australia.

2) Otherwise, he should follow his own advice and "make sure that you do not offer a faith-based solution for a social problem". The other alternative, of course, is for him and others who want polygamy recognised, is simply to re-locate to a Muslim country.

Imagine having to endure multiple spouses. Oh, the horror.

Men not doing their fair share, dont communicate, need to be constantly nagged to take out the rubbish. Mental therapy and psycho-tropic drug use would explode. Having to fight those simple mere menz for the remote control when the games on... definately grounds for divorce. How many AVOs she gonna need. Cameras in all the rooms as children are likely to be sexually abused by a live-in male who isnt their father.

Imagine having a house full of wives getting on yer case and paying off all those credit cards. Plus, all that pointless talking and personal projection. Noise cancelling headphone sales would go thru the roof... of course being ignored would be domestic abuse and cause for an AVO.

Imagine the consequences in the event of divorce. Polyandrist divorcees getting alimony from multiple husbands and polygamous divorcees paying it to multiple wives. Maybe they would have to share it amongst themselves, which obviously wouldnt be enuff, obviously unacceptable to the fems.

Obviously so-called gender equality has descended into little more than a silly power-shifting battle of the sexes. A zero-sum game, clearly evidenced by the way folks post to these types of threads. Its all point scoring and molifying of insecure yet massive egoes, all around, and it all cancels itself out.

The sexes dont really seem to like each other that much, readily resorting to passive-aggressive, veiled and plausibly deniable insults, masqerading as reasonable dialogue. The so-called MRAs and Feminists are as bad as each other.

The sexes have learnt to expansively project their rhetoric of ressentment onto each other. Its all that lonliness, insecurity, unrequitted feelings and the me, me, me ego tripping control freaks that folks have become. Could be the result of the highly transient and shifting nature of society over the last few decades.

trade, this could be a glass half full/half empty debate.

In the case of polygamy - when the male is all listened or talked out there is someone else in the house who might have some energy left.

When it's difficult for two people to juggle career's and child care maybe it's not so difficult for 3 or more working together.

When one spouse is too tired to be interested in sex maybe another won't be.

For polyandry there is another male around you can share male interests with. Another person who might find bloke humor funny.

If multiple partners of both genders than all of the above may apply.

When it went well it could be great for all concerned, when it went bad it might even be worse than when two person relationships go bad.

Other than the difficulties around trying to extend the legal protections and financial benefits of a conventional hetrosexual marriage to multi partner relationships I don't think its the governments business how many consenting adults are in a relationship.

We don't stop hetrosexual couples from making bad relationship nor do we stop them from entering such relationships because the other person might abuse the relationship so I don't see why the arguments against the various forms of polygamy are any different.

R0bert

Democracy 101: Of course those wanting polygamy should argue this in secular terms. We are a democracy, not a theocracy. We don't run our country according to any religion (if we did, why adopt shari'ah law instead of Catholic Canon law?). It's about time people realised that in a democracy laws should be neutral in respect of religion. Every religion thinks it has a monopoly on truth, but they can't all be right. If one person wants to follow their religion, they must accept that others should be able to follow theirs. To allow everyone to follow their personal beliefs, the state must remain neutral as to all. No one should impose their beliefs on any one else. That is the way to ensure that everone can follow their own religion (it also ensures that the state does not interfere or compromise religion). The one exception to this is where that adversely affects the rights of others. The lesson: If you want to live in a democracy and enjoy the equality it ensures, you must accept the restrictions on our activities that are consistent with that equality. Otherswise recognise that you do not accept democracy and don't pretend you do. By the way, most of the world's nations (including, believe it or not, Zimbabwe), have signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in which they agree to be abide by the above principles. Ovbiously not all hour their commitment.

Bronwyn,
I recall what the poster said but not the posters name or gender. What do you mean by 'we're'? Are all other posters mere females?
You are being a bit over sensitive as I did not mention names of other posters that posted non-rational reasons either.

I suppose I should have taken Stevens suggestion and used the word spouse instead of wife as polygamy is applicable to both genders. I used the word wife as a husband taking an additional wife is the most common form of polygamy. But not exclusive as it could be husband 1 that is the loser if wife gets another husband.

If you read my posts you would have seen that I said polygamy would only work where the male is lord and master. It would have little relevance here and I did say that wife1 (spouse1) should have right of veto.

I disagree that it is sufficient reason to ban polygamy on its own.

If spouse1 agrees to the additional spouse, why prevent the union?

Just because a law has been in place for a long time does not mean it should always be. There has to be valid reasons to keep it.

Valid reasons is what I am looking for.

There have been two very good rational responses given. Religion does not need to come into this debate.

Genetic Biodiversity and Gender imbalance.

I disagree with steven's take on biodiversity. The more genes a group share the less diversity within the larger group. Obviously the risk is greater with a smaller group such as the Texan and other mid-Western American sects, but while the risk is spread in a larger polygamous group, over time genetic diversity will be impacted.

This is just simple biology 101. Steven mentioned first cousins, there will be a lot more of them in a polygamous society.

The complexities of a polygamous society do not bear thinking about - economically, biologically, pragmatically, or from a social policy perspective.

Do all partners sleep in the same house, do the married polyandrous wives live in separate dwellings to allow visitations for all their husbands and vice-versa, or do all the husbands, wives and offspring of one enormous polygamous group dwell in one mansion-sized house.

A quick google found:

http://www.chinadaily.net/world/2007-06/15/content_895516.htm

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/features/utah/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v265/n5589/abs/265046a0.html

"Christians centuries later, may have perverted his philosophy but the actions of Mohammad are clearly stated in the Koran."

Arjay, tell me where in the Koran it says that Mohammad married a 9 year old. Provide the chapter and verse.

You talk about Jesus. Since when have Christians followed Jesus? Modern Christianity is based on the teachings of a bloke named Saul who claimed to have seen a vision on the road to Damascus.

Paul had plenty to say about women needing to cover their hair and obey their husbands. Shall I start quoting?

And if Christianity is just about Jesus, how come so many churches still keep the Old Testament in their Bibles? And where did Jesus ban polygamy? Again, chapter and verse please.

The fact is that Christian churches which ban polygamy have made exceptions and exemptions for Christians living in parts of Africa where polygamy is the norm. Are these African Christians lechers?

I'll bet you won't be able to answer all these questions rationally. Because you are so filled with sectarian bigotry. You hate Moslems with a passion. You hate their religion. You hate their culture. You want them out of your country. Even though hardly any of them practise polygamy or are any threat to you.

Bozo,

http://citizenwarrior2.blogspot.com/2008/01/eleven-reasons-to-reject-sharia-in-any.html

Here is one reference in Reason 9 ..there are plenty of others.

This one refers to the deviant thug beating his child bride Aisha.

Go back to Lebanon Mr Trad.

I am a 32-year-old female, Polish born, not religious, but I consider myself spiritual and have a keen interest in Gnosticism. I have been in a defacto relationship for 13 years and have a child. I have not decided to marry because I personally consider the act of marriage as somewhat restricting.

I would like to congratulate Keysar Trad on bringing the issues of polygamy into a discussion in our contemporary society. More than before we need new role models where we can live freely and through which we can express ourselves without stigma.
I am very open-minded person and think that we should create new models/types of relationships that suit the nature of our human spirit and not be judged for our gender or religion. I think our teenagers would benefit from those new role models in relationships and help them with their own sense of identity and develop emotional maturity.

We have to look at ourselves and our relationships without fear and accept the new possibilities where old ones make us feel emotionally, spiritually and physically restricted. (Look depression, adultery, health problems)
A discussion is definitely needed, so is honesty!

I would personally accept another person into my relationship, as I feel it would give us more freedom and help us to develop more mature love and respect towards one another without jealousy and possessiveness. It's absurd to think we are not going to be attracted to others just because we are in a committed relationship. We should be able as mature adults to discuss our needs and in the name of love and freedom not religion or morality let go of old 'laws' that do not suit everyone. This will only work in a mature, equal, healthy relationship, but there is certainly a room for polygamy in the future. I would prefer to grow up with it rather that deceit, dishonesty and disconnection that surrounds us. Some of us are capable to love more that one person.

Bronwyn..I agree it should be about equality and rights.

Call me stuuupid but I would not like my wife sleeping with another man, and given that males and females are equal.. I cannot imagine my wife exactly rejoicing if I slept with another woman.

I simply cannot fathom the idea of dressing up marital unfaithfulness in a label to make it somehow acceptable.

The idea of marraige is the ultimate intimacy and one-ness of a man and a woman..

Bozo.. Mohammad and 9 yr old Aisha are not in the Quran, it is well attested in the Hadith..2nd level of Islamic scriptures. The hadith are 'sahih'.. i.e. proven and recognized, and from multiple chains of narration.. nothing to argue about, its fact.

But wife beating is in the Quran.. and I'm sure all the ladies out there are utterly overcome with joy knowing they have this very strict 'rod' of authority hanging over them.. and of course..if we doubt the size of the rod.. there are plenty of instructional video's on youtube which can assist we blokes on how to do it.

Keysar has a personal agenda here..and it's a bit lower than his navel.. he was once (?) obsessed with another girl..maybe he still is?

But in reality this is more about 'Islamic law' than just the personal circumstances of Keysar... the closer we come to that... the happier he will be.

If the government was to recognise polygamy where would limits then be set? In fact, why would there be a need for any societal norms if were we to recognise the whims of any interest group?

Common customs and institutions are vital for strong communities, and recognising polygamy would undermine this.

Mr Trad go back to where you belong. Back to Lebanon.

I'm trying to picture how this debate will play out amongst some in the muslim community. On the one hand we have a society that has for the most part learned to accept homosexual relationship's. That has not yet legalised their unions but is willing to have a serious discussion on the topic. My impression is that fundy muslims are about as keen on homosexuals as fundy christains.

On the other hand when a muslim raises the isea of pluralistic marriages, allowed in their faith, common amongst the key figures in the old testament and only expressly forbidden to church leaders in the new testament many are up in arms in outrage.

When Dustin Hoffman suggests that men are not well suited to monogamy we have a quiet giggle and think all the better of him, when Keysar says pretty much the same thing we are outraged. We cope quite well with serial monogamy but are distressed at the idea that consenting adults might seek to deal with this a different way.

It appears from what I've seen of the research that a large proportion of people are also involved in infidelity with an existing partner - an interesting paper is at http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Commun/pdf/babin.pdf

The difficulty which I see with Keysar's proposal is sorting through the maze of governmnet involvment in relationships to ensure such relationships don't gain extra financial advantage over other types of relationships nor be unfairly disadvanataged. That looks like a nightmare. Likewise with the myriad forms which don't consider the possibility of more than one spouse - a lesser issue but not insignificant.

The rest of the arguments against seem to be the old anti-gay arguments recycled or a lack of confidence in women to make informed adult choices.

R0bert

My position on this issue can be summed up thus:

Polygamy (official or unofficial) is a fundamental violation of women's human rights. It is not an equal relationship between partners. The idea that polygamy is okay if a man can "keep" more than one wife gives the game away.

Polygamy may go back hundreds or even thousands of years but just because something is traditional doesn't make it okay. In English history, for example, King John and Richard II had child brides. Just because particular forms of marriage were allowed in earlier periods doesn't negate the fact they were inherently unequal.

Not all Muslims agree with Keysar Trad and Islamic adherents (and other religious believers) should ditch any belief that conflicts with human rights. These beliefs include honour killings, opposition to homosexuality or an entitlement to sex in marriage.

Muslims who regard polygamy as a right should not be told to go back to Lebanon/Pakistan/[insert country of choice]. I don't regard polygamy as acceptable in any country. Moving the problem to Lebanon, for example, doesn't change the outcome for women.

The interesting thing about this thread is that even though people cannot put forward rational argument against polygamy, they are against it for purely personal or religious beliefs.

For many practical reasons polygamy is not my thing, but if all parties are willing and not forced I cannot see why it should be banned. It has no effect on others. It has been stated that only 1% of Muslims actually practice Polygamy, so it is unlikely to take off in a big way here anyway. If it were not banned, maybe we could get those spouses to financially contribute to the kids, rather than taxpayers paying as present with adulterous relationships.

Genetic diversity has been put forward, but that only effects those closed societies where no new blood is introduced. Gender imbalance has also been raised but much, much more than 1% would need to be involved for that to be a factor.

Interestingly polyandry and/or group marriage may have to be a consideration in China in comming years to counteract a gender imbalance brought on by the one child policy.

I do not see our politicians getting enough pressure to change the current situation.

Meg Wallace says

"Of course those wanting polygamy should argue this in secular terms. We are a democracy, not a theocracy."

Meg.. come close.. give me your ear.. closer.. I need to whisper this..

Pssst.."Keysar knows he can have a polygamous relationship even without the formality of Australian marriage, this is in fact about one tiny step closer to the 'Theocracy' which you feel this is not about"

I would love to think that we could all sing a secular "kumbaya el presidente" together and not have to worry about such things, but alas... reality bites.

Keysar is on a social jihad..(I resisted temptation to use 'crusade' there :)

The closer we come to Islamic law, the more clout that segment of the population will have.

If you think Islam is about anything else than 'brute force'... then have a squizz at this.. and see the 'threat after threat' to world leaders of Mohammad's day.

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/muhammad/prophets_plans_to_spread_the_message.htm

The letters to various emperors... all had a common theme.

-Come to Islam. (invitation)
-If you do, it will go well with you. (Carrot)
-If you don't.... things wont go well. (threat)

It's worthwhile noting that his letter to Egypt was on 628 and after he died, Omar one of his chief henchmen and thugs, sent an army to force them to accept Islamic rule in 639.

No... "Islam did not spread by the sword". (cough..choke..nose extension)

RObert

"The rest of the arguments against seem to be the old anti-gay arguments recycled or a lack of confidence in women to make informed adult choices."

What sort of 'informed adult choices', RObert, are you expecting women to make here?

If polygamous relationships were legal, the only 'informed adult choice' most thinking women would be interested in making would be to choose a partner who would not be looking for a second or third female to join the happy family further down the track. No doubt, as pointed out by an earlier poster, after she herself had put in the hard yards in the first stages of the relationship, gone without while they were both on struggle street, borne the children, and god help her been stupid enough to grow old.

That's what this debate is all about - establishing the inalienable right of men to feed their fragile egos by taking in ever younger women. Not to discard the old ones completely, mind you. No, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Keep the old model, she's well trained and has her uses, but a younger one will keep the blood stirring and the ego healthy.

Thankfully, not all men are as blind to the gender inequality inherent in this debate as you appear to be, RObert. David's comments for example show some much appreciated empathy and understanding and I'll repeat them for your benefit.

"Polygamy (official or unofficial) is a fundamental violation of women's human rights. It is not an equal relationship between partners. The idea that polygamy is okay if a man can 'keep' more than one wife gives the game away."

There have been one or two other similarly perceptive comments from male posters here, but they are certainly in the minority.

It's easy for people like you to attack women for their 'lack of confidence'. I wonder where it comes from?

"not all men are as blind to the gender inequality inherent in this debate as you appear to be"

Perhaps so, I assume that adult women are capabale of making responsible choice for themselves. I see under our currrent laws that many women are quite capable of breaking of long term relationships for a variety of reasons (as are men). Those reasons include "someone else" and a number of other factors which allowing pluralistic marriages might actually reduce.

It might be blindness but I don't get how this idea can be a fundamental violation of a womans human rights when the destruction of marriages is so widespread regardless of the human rights of the person who did not want it to end.

Assume that this proposal is only about men taking on extra partners (we would need some history to tell if thats the case) - given the claimed infidelity rates for both genders I'm not so sure of that.

A woman still has the same rights she has now to leave if she is not happy. She still has the same rights to say it's her or me as she does now with an unfaithful partner. Which of a womans rights is taken away by this proposal?

What does this proposal do to women that does not occur under existing relationship laws other than allow more choice?

Those with the fragile ego's needing to go for a younger model do so now, the difference is if they are serious about it there is no third option.

I strongly of the view that women are well past the point where they need to be protected by a limiting of their choices by those who assume they may not be capable of making good decisions. The womans human rights argument seems to assume otherwise.

R0bert

RObert

"It might be blindness but I don't get how this idea can be a fundamental violation of women's human rights when the destruction of marriages is so widespread regardless of the human rights..."

The issue of polygamy violating women's human rights is separate to the rights issues involved in the destruction of current marriages. It's unhelpful for you to keep confusing the two.

"Assume this proposal is only about men taking on extra partners (we would need some history to tell if that's the case) - given the claimed infidelity rates for both genders I'm not so sure of that."

I don't think we need any closer check of history than we have already. It's completely disingenuous of yourself and others to keep referring to the freedom of women to engage in polyandry as being every bit as equal to that of men to engage in polygyny. It's an academic and false equality because we all know that in reality that would not be how it would work. You're assuming the current power balance between the genders is already equal, which is a very shaky assumption to be basing an argument on.

"Those with the fragile egos needing to go for a younger model do so now, the difference is if they are serious about it there is no third option."

Yes, and it's this very lack of a 'third option' that protects women. It protects them from having to share their half of the powerbase, which their committment to the relationship provides them, with another person.

"...women are well past the point where they need to be protected by a limiting of their choices by those who assume they may not be capable of making good decisions."

You're right, women don't need their choices restricted. That's exactly my point. Legalised polygamy would deny women's choice, not enhance it. It would deny all women the legitimate expectation that they could enter into a committed relationship on an equal footing with their male partner and have it remain that way, not taken from them by someone else.

Bronywn, we are probably already arguing in circles and I hope that we are both misunderstanding the other to some extent. Whilst I disagree with you at times I generally appreciate your thinking.

"You're assuming the current power balance between the genders is already equal, which is a very shaky assumption to be basing an argument on." - if anything I think that for most the current power base within monogamous marriages in our society is shifted slightly in the females favour. I know that there are exceptions and that some of those exceptions will be along cultural grounds but I'm certainly not convinced that men hold most of the power in the home.

"the legitimate expectation that they could enter into a committed relationship on an equal footing with their male partner and have it remain that way, not taken from them by someone else."

Since the introduction of no-fault divorce none of us has that right. Legitimate expectations for a committed relationship can be removed at a change of mind of the other party with no comeback. I don't know a good way around it either, keeping people trapped in a destructive marriage because it has not passed some externally verifiable threshold of harm seems worse.

I'd like to see more options available for people regarding what they sign up for rather than the current mostly meaningless till death do us part unless someone has a change of mind monogamous marriage.

I've not seen anything so far in this discussion that shows pluralistic marriages introduce new negatives which are not a part of our existing structures and I can see the posibility of some benefits to both men and women.

R0bert

DavidJS: <<Not all Muslims agree with Keysar Trad>>

Islamist apologists like DavidJS may like to know that mainstream Mormons (LDS) don’t practice polygamy since 1890. If Muslims disagree with the practice of polygamy they should also change their doctrine on polygamous marriage.

It is sad indeed that the pseudo-left in the West are easily taken in by the Islamist’s hidden agenda of establishing sha'riah law in secular democracies.

Imam Keysar Trad wrote, “I believe that we cannot ignore the rights of women and children of philanderers” , implying that the Muslim’s doctrine on polygamy would solve the plight facing women. But this is far from the truth when we examine the practice of Muslims regarding divorce.

A married Muslim man can dissolve his marriage at any time by saying to his wife: "Talaq, talaq, talaq" at one occasion of his own free will and desire. Even in some Islamic countries eg Malaysia a Muslim can divorce his wife using sms.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/.stm

If a man can divorce a woman in Islam so easily, when he is tired of his wives, what security and rights (for Muslim women) is this guy, Keysar Trad, talking about?

When Irfan the Muslim divorced his wife of 20 years, he thought that saying ‘talaq’ three times and paying her a one-off payment of US$2,500 would be enough. Fortunately for his wife she was in the United States. (Court denies Islamic divorce)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/maryland/bal-md.divorce07may07,0,7995.story (Court denies Islamic divorce)

Surely it is arrogant of DavidJS to deny Muslims the freedom to practice the full range embodied in the sha’riah laws. It is on this basis that some in OLO advise devout Muslims to go to Islamic countries to fulfill their aspirations; much as the Puritans left England to the US and Australasia to be free to practice a purer form of Christianity.

Robert,

rather than the relativities of glass half full/empty, l reckon the glass is TOO BIG.

Philip Tang contradicts himself. On the on hand, he says I'm soft on Muslims. On the other, he calls me arrogant for wanting to deny Muslims the freedom to practice particular religious freedoms. This is the sort of response you get when someone like Mr Tang doesn't read your posts correctly and simply wants to trot out old mantras.

I'm not going to add anymore information except to say that in this day and age, there can be no such thing as unlimited religious freedom. My previous post adequately describes the rest of my position.

This is an example of how Muslims are determined to get their own way, they do it quietly, a bit at a time until they get an inch then the wedge goes in and they get a bit more. But all the time the work of chipping away goes on.
And that is how the Uk has become a basket case and Holland and France, all in trouble with their Muslim population.
Muslims know our laws, they just do not want to live by them. It should be made very clear that ALL in Australia follow Australian law or find another country more suited to their ideas.
There must be NO weakening of our laws for anyone. There is no need for it.

trade, I'm strongly opposed to others deciding how big someone elses glass should be. I think the government should butt out of consenting adults choices where those choices don't unreasonably impact on others. I don't see how this proposal makes things worse for woman than the current arrangment and I don't see equitable fixes to the current levels of access to divorce.

I'd rather there was less divorce but would hate that to require false accusations and or the destruction of the other parties reputation which seems to be the fault divorce fallback.

It's been put as a womans human rights issue but no one has demonstrated why that is so.

I don't see how the sexual morality issue can be considered relevant when the levels of infidelity are so high and when the idea of inteferance in consenting adults sexual choices has been so thoroughly trumped in the gay rights debate.

Again I'm waiting to see good reasons why current laws against polygamy are a legitimate intrusion into the private lives of consenting adults and I've not seen them.

R0bert

Today's world is proof of two theories.
1. Populate or perish...Western style that is what we are doing.

2. Overpopulate but spread your excess to Western countries where the living is easy and when your numbers build up, the country is ready for take over... Muslim style that is what the muslims are doing.

Today's history lesson.

Trad. Who will support the wives and children when you can no longer work or die? Do they go onto the streets to beg and be treated like animals like they do in the Middle East??
Do you not accept that the world needs less people rather than more? And why should Western countries with lower populations be expected to be the dumping grounds for the overflow from countries and cultures that do not encourage or support population/birth control. Is this not a macro form of abuse where over breeding is left to others to take care of?

By the way, don't hold England up as a bright light. England is stuffed thanks to the Islamic influx into that country.

Lets face it. Keysar supports polygamy simply because he believes in a false prophet that taught the wrong things.

Muhammad needed women. They were his extensions and influences.

Muhammad married the wealthy Khadija, and tricked her to believe her husband met an angel from God.

Entrapped by her false belief, Khadija became the first false "witness" of Islam...

Then Muhammad and Khadija went to Khadija's cousin Waraqa. Together they influenced him about Muhammad's angel encounters.

There was no such thing as a "Muslim" earlier... then suddenly there were 3 - Muhammad, Khadija & Waraqa.

The population of the false religion Islam exploded astronomically... supported by forced conversion, many polygamous wives, many children...

Muhammad needed many wives. Is it any wonder he supported polygamy?

Muhammad deceived people around him from DAY ONE. Keysar the poor fool is a modern day victim of Muhammad's deception.

But now Keysar is replicating Muhammad's lies... and the lies just go on and on...

Is anybody really surprised by demands by Muslims to allow polygamy?

After all, if Australia is truly a multicultural society, as our elites keep telling us it us, then surely every group should be allowed to follow and practice their own separate cultures and traditions, shouldn't they?

In truth, what we are seeing is the inevitable outcome of multiculturalism. By redefining Australia as nothing more than a mere collection of disparate communities, multiculturalism has undermined the role of Australia's founding European Christian population and delegitimised the right to primacy of its Western cultural norms, thereby creating a false historical equality between the host and newly-arrived populations.

As a result, the culture of Australia's historic majority population is entitled to no more consideration than those of newly-arrived minorities. To multiculturalists, the host should not expect immigrant minorities to adapt to the host's culture and traditions. In fact, the host should have to cater to all the demands of the newcomers.

Having surrendered the right to primacy of its own culture, it follows that the host population is obliged to yield, step by step, to the demands of the other cultures that now exist on Australian soil. After all, who has the right to decide that something is not culturally acceptable in 'multicultural' Australia?

Interesting words of protest, Efranke

>>Having surrendered the right to primacy of its own culture, it follows that the host population is obliged to yield, step by step, to the demands of the other cultures that now exist on Australian soil<<

But face it, what we are seeing today is absolutely no different to what has happened in every generation since 1788.

No "culture" has, during this time, been in any way static. It is surely therefore not reasonable or realistic to assume that everything suddenly comes to a shuddering halt in 2008.

How would you have phrased your concern in 1800, if you were aboriginal?

How would you have phrased your concern in 1860, if you were a freed convict, observing the influx of Irish and Chinese into the goldfields?

As in the past, there is no reason to suddenly change our mind as a country, and in doing so become insular, inward-looking and fearful.

Typical Keysar Trad: say it's only a very small problem, not at all a muslim problem, but it's a really big problem for non-muslims, it's a problem that effects the underpriviledged (like muslims, but I didn't say that), and even you secularists need to embrace Islam otherwise there'll be trouble. All with Keysar saying he'd rather not do it, and poor me for having to do it.
Just like the Koran: imbecilic nonsense laced with threats.
That no society is without problems is a banal statement. That a secular society may not have removed from itself all of the trappings of its religious past is also no surprise.
Most secular western societies have dealt with the notion of illegitimate children by abolishing the notion of legitimacy, and the term wedlock is part of this archaic past.
Children may well benefit from parenting from a mother and father more than from one or the other: or, for that matter, from a father or mother shared. A large number of families in Australia are 'blended' nowadays: children from more than one relationship. But not trying to hang on to the old relationships - leaving them in the past. Is such a relationship in the present? That's Keysar's legitimate question.
The hidden agend is that Islam should be allowed to be fully practiced anywhere there are Muslims. One law for Muslims, another for all the others. But Islam is a stupid, chaotic, puritanical form of fascism, which is clear if you actually read the Koran. Fortunately, most Muslims don't seem to read it, or can't bring themselves to do what it tells them to.

Pericles wrote: "But face it, what we are seeing today is absolutely no different to what has happened in every generation since 1788."

Not true. What we are witnessing today differs profoundly from previous experiences for a number of reasons.

Firstly, current immigration numbers are unprecedentedly high by historical standards. While our politicians don't like to talk about it, the reality is that Australia is presently engulfed in the largest wave of immigration that it has ever experienced.

Secondly, unlike previous waves of immigration which were almost exclusively from Europe, today's newcomers are from far more diverse backgrounds. So, not only are they arriving in much greater numbers than previous arrivals, they are also far more ethnically and culturally divergent from the host population than the immigrants of yesteryear.

Whereas former waves of immigration demographically strengthened Australia's European majority, the present influx is doing the opposite. Indeed, by the end of this century Australia will have become in large part an Asian society in which Australians of European ancestry will have become a minority - a drastic immigration-induced revolution in the nation’s character that will dwarf the changes brought by earlier waves of immigration.

Moreover, this unprecedentedly large and diverse foreign influx is occuring at a time when the very notion of a common Australian culture to which immigrants should assimilate has come under fierce and sustained attack from multiculturalism - a doctrine aimed at totally redefining the basis of our national existence. Australia's national culture is not being merely augmented as you suggest; it is being completely torn down in favour of newly-arrived, mainly non-Western immigrant cultures.

"As in the past, there is no reason to suddenly change our mind as a country, and in doing so become insular, inward-looking and fearful."

By your reasoning, homogeneous countries such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan must all be "insular, inward-looking and fearful" places because they haven't embraced mass immigration and multiculturalism.