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