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.