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.