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.