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.