"Why should “bigamy” be a crime?"
Many of our laws are derived from historical Judeo/Christian practices and teachings. The prohibition against bigamy can be found in Matthew 6:24. "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

Did you read the post or did you just read the teaser: "A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life? Why should 'bigamy' be a crime?"

That teaser actually comes from Trad himself, not from me, if you read the post.

Agreed - most Christians do not believe in polygamy (c/f Mormons). And that's certainly where our cultural values come from, as well as the laws against bigamy. Most Jewish groups do not believe in polygamy either. But what about other religions that do?

I was looking more at the policy arguments than religious tenets because we live in a multicultural multi-religious society.

I think that on balance, we should not support polygyny because it leads to inequality in society and oppression of women. And the family law problems that would result would be immense!

From what I have read, this has already been formalised in the de facto marriages act, where a married man can be held responsible for his second de facto wife, but not charged for polygamy.

This might well prove a defense against prosecution for polygamy if there is another legal system that allows it.

Legal Eagle - I have amended the blurb to make it clearer that those are Keysar Trad's words. Apologies for that.

Shadow Minister - yes - the amendments to the Family Law Act do require you to support more than one partner if you have more than one. So if Trad did decide to have a second wife, he would be required to support her under the new s 4AA. But he could also run the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.

The thing that worries me about the new de facto laws is that there is not necessarily a rite of passage, no moment where the parties say, "Okay, we're a couple." So one party could think they were in a de facto relationship and the other might think they were not. And marriage-like obligations are being forced on people who might not necessarily want that.

Interestingly, my co-blogger was mentioning that the Romans had lesser relationships which could be entered into by contract (concubinage) - so a woman or a man could have one spouse and one concubine. The Romans also had time-limited concubinage contracts, and if you left your partner before the time was up, you had to pay them out. Indeed, St Augustine got in big trouble for not paying out his concubine when he left her before the contract was up. Maybe if we want to recognise less formal relationships we need to think of measures like that.

Susan - thanks for that.

Oh I can think of a very good reason!

We'd land up with a whole lot of blokes with 4 wives, 4-5 kids
each, wanting a huge social welfare cheque to take care of them
all!

Thanks but no thanks.

I think you're dead right Yabby.

But is that much different to a whole lot of women, [the so called single mother], with 4 or 5 kids, 5 ex boyfriends, & a couple of current "uncles", wanting a huge welfare cheque.

In this case, when many of the fathers do not even know of it, is it any better"?

I can't imagine that too many men would be silly enough to want to live with more than one wife, when one is mostly quite enough, to live with.

I gather our welfare system has some sideways way of funding multiple wives for our islamic community. In these cases I believe the women are separately funded, & lover boy just visits. Now you're talking.

Would you sign on for that one, eagle lady?

Rape is already illegal, and marriage is by law defined as a voluntary union; and nobody is arguing otherwise.

Therefore all arguments to the effect that polygamy should be illegal on the ground of the supposed need of the protection of the woman from her own decision, are more paternalistic than polygamy is, which respects the woman’s right to decide for herself what consensual relations to enter into.

To say that Western societies have moved to ban polygamy is to confuse the state with society. The whole reason for the state trying to ban it is precisely because people, ie "society", doesn’t agree.

“What do we prioritise, gender equality or religious/cultural practice?””

How about freedom?

“Also, women in polygynous relationships must also have a right of divorce which is equal to the man’s right.”

Is it for you to tell other people what consensual relationships they can enter into? How do you know that the benefits the woman foregoes are not greater than the benefits she might have obtained from a marriage that she approved, but you did not?

“ And women in such polygynous relationships say that there is always a threat - “If you don’t behave, I’ll get another wife.””

That applies to any relationship and is part of setting boundaries in negotiating agreement. It is not different to Australian women “threatening” to leave their husbands letting them know what the deal-breakers are.

“It’s a very difficult question.”

No it’s not. People should be free to do what they want, so long as they are not aggressing against others.

The situation under the Family Law and de facto relationships is abhorrent; the opposite of what it should be. *The parties* should be the only ones to decide whether a relationship exists and ends. It is not for the state to dictate the terms of sexual relationships without the consent, or even the knowledge of the parties.

The Marriage, Family Law, Property Relationships and Child Support Acts should all be abolished.

Yabby: that is an argument against chaotic and unfair welfare state handouts, not against liberty.

“We'd land up with a whole lot of blokes with 4 wives, 4-5 kids
each, wanting a huge social welfare cheque to take care of them
all!” – Yabby.

The fundamentally important point is the matter of issue out of relationships – the resulting children need to be adequately fostered; from birth to the end of their formal education.

A society where blokes have umpteen wives - or chicks have a handful or more of husbands – is still capable of civility; but in order to keep it on this side of the rabbit-proof fence, there would need to be restrictions on women.

How many children a man sires is not of great importance – but it is essential that each woman needs to be restricted in the number of children: an average of two for all of the sisterhood.

Give the blokes open slather to slaughter each other for the right to unrestricted procreation. Give the restricted women the right to choose which mate or mates (they won’t fight each other over that, surely). Revitalise society with the competition policy so much vaunted by current gurus of social direction.

Let's be honest I don't believe those arguing for polygamy are really championing polyandry.

Keyser Trad's argument implies that all men have affairs anyway so why not legalise this betrayal of first wives and futher, seek her generosity in giving to her husband this gift. How utterly selfish.

The person we should be asking is his wife. How does she really feel about this?

Rather those who cannot or do not wish to stay faithful to their spouses get a divorce. But if we were to move to polygamy as a valid choice for some, I agree with the author that a wife should have the option to leave the marriage should the choice of taking a second, third or umpteenth wife not be of her choosing.

However the issue is more complext than that. In most societies or sects where polygamy is allowed the women have no real choice in the matter. Nor do they have any real option to leave. These communities are often very closed and isolated from mainstream society.

Let's face it Centrelink turns a blind eye already to polygamous unions and as Yabby rightly says we are supporting these numerous family situations through welfare.

Colin
“ the resulting children need to be adequately fostered; from birth to the end of their formal education.”

If it’s not okay to treat women as sex objects, why is it okay to treat men as money objects?

The fact is there are loads and loads of people who would like to look after children: far more than there are children in need of it. The starting point is that the parents probably would; but if for any reason they can’t, those who want to should.

All that is necessary is for the parties to the marriage, and to transactions generally, to agree, ie it must be voluntary.

There is no need for any law on the matter except the criminal law and the law against neglect of children.

Pelican
Inquiring into people’s motives is irrelevant; there will always be strong differences of opinion on things sexual.

What about championing the freedom of the individual to decide, free from the meddling of others about what he or she should be forced or prohibited to do?

“Rather those who cannot or do not wish to stay faithful to their spouses get a divorce.”

Why are their sexual affairs your business? If the man sees an advantage, and the woman sees an advantage in a second wife, or vice versa, why should the parties be criminals for making a solemn undertaking to perform an agreement?

All that is necessary, from the point of view of protecting the woman, is to require her consent to enter into it on any terms she chooses; the same as the man.

So long as it is entered voluntarily, to say a woman has “no choice” is merely saying she values something else more highly than the man’s exclusive fidelity. That’s her choice, not yours!

The state sanctions and even subsidises bigamy; but if citizens dare to decide their own sexual and fiduciary behaviour it’s a crime!

It should be the other way around: people can have whatever relations they want, and the state has no power to override them, unless to prevent force or fraud.

For me, I don't think that polygamy is a good idea. I can think of no good reason why a person would want more than one spouse at a time. But here we run into a problem for all of those who want to claim that polygamy should not be permitted because of the Judeo-Christrian 'tradition'. Firstly, polygamy was common in old testament Israel.

Secondly, in the New Testament Jesus and the apostles did not permit divorce, 'except for adultery'. But we have one of the most divorced society in history, with people living in defacto relationships, same sex relationships, divorces, remarriages and the like. Marriage in this society is essentially meaningless in comparison with the 'biblical ideal'. So to claim some religious basis to ban polygamy in our society is to promote religion to a position that it does not actually hold.

I will agree with all of those who want to condemn polygamy when they declare absolute opposition to divorce and remarriage.

On the other hand we live in a society of 'informed consent': that is a liberal democracy. If people choose, without coercion, to get into relationships that we do not personally approve of is to impose our standards on others. To approve, for instance, of abortion on demand yet to condemn polygamy is sheer hypocrisy. We are free to make many choices, why not to choose to live in a polygamous relationship?

After all, with the new laws recognising defacto relationships as being broadly equivalent to marriages actor Jack Thompson for a while would have been considered a polygamist – especially as he was living with two sisters simultaneously, and revelling in the relationship and how many people look at the example of industrial magnate Richard Pratt, who in effect had two wives and two families. How many have condemned him?

Lets face it, we already have polygamy, we just don’t see it when it is in our faces.

Legal Eagle,

IMO the major issues with the law in this context are:
- its sexually/gender aspects are far too emphasised and would appear are religiously influenced culturally based.
- it relies on black letter law and precedents. Rife for abuse.

Generally speaking most people are unable/unwilling to think outside this bias. Consequently I doubt that any substantial change will happen in the near future.

Having now declared my self a heretic, and in that context I can see no rational
reason not to legalise all three homosexual 'marriage', polygamy or polyandry for the reasons you gave.

That doesn't mean I don't see need for imposed conditions .
The most obvious it that ALL the people involved do so willingly and in full knowledge of the others and the exclusion of power abuses. Including forced arranged marriages, psychological abuse (sects) etc.

I see issues with social security and consequences for the children beyond public acceptance but in case of part-time dad/mum role models.

The big issue would be where to draw the line a good example is e.g. that man 50 something who had/has 6-7 de facto wives ranging from legal age to 35 and 24 children all effectively on social security.

If one considers the extreme end of Mormon (the polygamy sect) and extrapolate that the above would be common.
The angry diarrhoeic elephants in the corner would be, population limits of Aust and
the burden on the social security system.
I doubt that families of this complexity/size would be generally self funding.

All these issues render the idea politically too hard.

PS Given our family coven with a wife, my mother, two daughter, two sisters in law (one a nun) and a niece provide more than enough criticism/examination of my failings as it is .... if Polygamy became legal, I for one won't be availing myself of the facility, (self preservation) :-0 .

LOL examinator,

For once we find ourselves in agreement.

Quick, check to see whether this is some nefarious Zionist plot!

I see no reason why polygamy, polygyny and / or polyandry should be criminalised.

Should big unwieldy family structures be taxpayer subsidised?

We subsidise kids anyway.

I'm just curious as why nearly everyone, Keysar Trad included, seems to think of polygamy solely as a man with multiple wives?

The article correctly noted that polyandry is rarely practised.

It would seem that nearly everyone who discusses polygamy see it as something akin to a boy hogging as many chocolates as he can.

Polandry is widely practised in this society, it just isn't known as it.

It should be remembered that traditionally marriage was a permanent thing. It was designed, as it is in nature amongst many species, for two parents to raise offspring - as a way of giving their own genes as good a chance of continuing as possible. This didn't stop cuckolding, as that is also a useful strategy for continuation of genes (ie a female getting impregnated with a strong, but wayward, sire's dna whilst leaving it up to a less attractive male to unwittingly place father). This also meant that the cuckolding male had a good idea that his offspring would be well looked after.

Anyway - marriage was one way that was hoped to have two parents raise children, both having strong genetic investments. That is 'husband' equated to "offsprings' father".

Polygamy usually meant that the father had a good chance of knowing that the children were his. With polyandry this was less so.

So - in this society we have a number - not huge but a significant number - pf women who have serial DNA donors in their lives as 'fathers' of their children. These relationships are not permanent ie 'not marriages' but are short term, ranging from a few minutes to possibly years. In effect these women have more than one 'husband' if the traditional equation of "husband" equals "offsprings' father" is used.

These women are carrying out a form of serial polyandry.

So what is worse, a series of couplings producing a range of children who may or may not have the support of a 'father', or polygamy where more than two people in a relationship take responsibility for their DNA?

Both wish to exercise choice.

Personally I find both ideas particularly distasteful. The difference is the multiple fathers scenario is legal, whereas the polygamous one is not.

Now for some practicalities
Could most men who are flat out providing for one or two children pay their financial share of the cost of raising 16children by four wives?
It seems to me that the reason that the government is forcing men to pay for any extra women or children outside of their marriage, (that is the de-facto or mistress can come in and claim her share of his assests ) is because when the men responsible for the children don’t pay, the government(welfare)has to. If they don’t have adequate housing because the mother can’t afford it on a single mothers wage, then the government must pay rent assistance or provide public housing. The government obviously can see a BIG financial burden looming if men are allowed to keep on fathering children all over the place that they can’t help the mothers provide for.

Probably the reason society invented marriage in the first place. (who’s going to feed and house the children issues?)

If one man is going to have four or five wives, who incidently he wants to remain monogomas then there will be a shortage of women for other men in society. This could lead to all sorts of violence or unseen consequences.
Will women in these marriages want to share any wages they earn with children who arent’t theirs.

Also just as a point of interest;
Apart from financial assistance, women don’t need marriage like men do, because they always know who their children are.

Anyone who considers polygamy as a healthy thing has never visited a prison. The prisons would be almost empty if the men in their has one loving father and mother. Just read the problems that King David and Solomon ended up with because they could not control themselves. Polygamy today is generally nothing more than using women for no other means than sexual gratification. No doubt many secularist would be just as happy as the Muslims with this outcome. The people who end up paying are the taxpayers.

So how would it actually work?

As multiple traditional marriages or a single group bond? ie multiple 1-1 relationships or on big group relationship?

1) In the case of multiple 1-1 bonds:
What happens if one party leaves the marriage how are the assets divided? How do you determine which assets belong to which marriage.
What if one man is married to many women and one or more of these women are married to other men you would have a whole web of spouses. Christmas dinners could be interesting.
What if one of the spouses becomes unemployed do the others have to support him/her?

2) In the case of 1-many bonds:
Can any one person object to a newcomer?
Does the bond have to be dissolved and renegotiated?
Can one person belong to many 1-many bonds? Thus creating a web.
etc etc etc

People complain about the family court now, imagine if this becomes legal.

LOL Gusi,

Consider this scenario.

Man KT marries women A, B, C and D.

Woman C discovers she is bisexual and marries woman E who is already married to man P who also has wives F and G.

If woman C now has sex with man P is that adultery or is it a case of being "all in the family"?

What, if anything, could man KT do about these developments?

If the EPFG family are foreigners do they all have the right to migrate to Australia based on the CE marriage?

If Woman C is killed in a tragic accident who has the right to sue for pain and suffering?

Such changes in legislation would be the equivalent of lawyer heaven.

<such changes in legislation would be the equivalent of lawyer heaven.>

In reality the financial laws that have recently been changed to allow a mistress, a de-facto and a wife and their respective children if any, to all come in and lay claim to a share of the mans finances has already legislated for bigamy at the fianancial level.

I don’t think this has really bitten in the community yet and no doubt many are blissfully unaware of it. We all witnessed the recent acrimonious fight over resources between Greg Normans wife and children and his new love. The children in these situations, tend to feel disinherited and hostile.

In fact I have thought very deeply about these new laws and I will be making sure my daughters and granddaughters understand these laws and advising them to think very long and hard about entering into marriage or de-facto relationships with men. The fact that I am already thinking this way makes me think that there will be ramifications some years down the track for society. At the moment it is just a gut feeling I have that a major societal shift will occur because of this new legislation.

Peter
"Why are their sexual affairs your business? If the man sees an advantage, and the woman sees an advantage in a second wife, or vice versa, why should the parties be criminals for making a solemn undertaking to perform an agreement?"

Their sexual affairs are none of my business. However, IMO I think we are fooling ourselves if we think a woman faced with the desire of her husband to take on another wife, is thinking whoopee my Christmases have all come at once.

I remember reading a book about this set in Afghanistan and the taking of another wife never filled the first wife with joy. There is always resentment and rejection, and the perception that the husband has a new plaything.

The fact that there might be extenuating circumstances such as cultural or religious expectations or economic dependency would imply a kind of reluctant or 'no other option' consent. Defining this sort of consent as a choice is disingenuous.

Personally I think if two free thinking (emphasis on free thinking and independent) adults wish to agree to numerous sexual partners or to take on another more permanent partner that is entirely their business.

I just believe that we do, mainly women, a disservice to make white anglo saxon judgements about the 'freedoms' of some women to actually give informed and empowered consent in light of other socio-cultural considerations.

Polygamy is always raised as an issue in reference to men taking on more wives. I don't see many articles arguing for women to be able to take on many husbands.

Pelican has hit the nail on the head with this thread.

Polygamy is always assumed to mean one man marrying several women.
Some men, probably with the necessary help of Viagra, would find the legal, easily available prospect of different sexual partners very appealing no doubt.

Why not the other way around?
I would hazard a guess that this practice of polygamy is followed in countries or religions where women are considered second class, and merely around just to provide sons and pleasures for their main man.

I would fight tooth and nail to prevent this sort of degrading practice to be allowed in Australia because we already have enough anti-women sentiments in this country, and enough family problems as it is.

This time I agree with Runner - one loving father and one mother is a a good recipe for secure, happy children and lives that don't go off the rails. It's not a guarantee of this, but it's an excellent start.

Polygamy means, in practice, more fun for men, and a subordinate and potentially degrading role for women. The arguments have been canvassed.

I am heartily sick of Kaysar Trad advocating a creeping Islamization of this country. The great centres of Western culture in Europe are being whiteanted and destroyed by what Sarkozy rightly called rabble (canaille). It's a consternating disaster, and I can't think of a greater cultural and civilizational disaster for Australia than for us to move in this direction.

If Trad is so keen on the cultural appurtenances of his belief system, he should emigrate. And the politically correct, bend-over-backwards-to-tolerate brigade here should take a good hard look at the longterm consequences of allowing Muslim immigration.

*I don't see many articles arguing for women to be able to take on many husbands.*

Pelican, perhaps there arn't too many women who would want 2-3
husbands. After all, it seems that those married women have
enough headaches, when trying to cope with just one male :)

In the third world, polygamy is very much a status symbol,
restricted to those men who can bankroll a number of wives.
Here they simply have a wife and a mistress.

If Australian law was changed, the implication would be that the
Govt would pick up the costs, whilst hubby shags his life
away with many wives. Hardly fair to the poor old taxpayer.

When a bloke on another sight announced he was going to marry his long term girlfriend, there was a rash of posts, wanting to know why he had decided to give up sex.

From that chat it would appear that the more wives you had, the less sex you would get, so in your scenairo Yabby, he'd probably have to go out & get a girlfriend to get any at all.

"There is always resentment and rejection, and the perception that the husband has a new plaything. “

I'm sure that’s often right. However they are reasons against people entering into these relationships. They are not reasons for criminalising them.

“… imply a kind of reluctant or 'no other option' consent.”

The fact that we don’t like or don’t prefer our other options, doesn’t mean we have no other option. For example, most people don’t like to be unemployed. But that doesn’t mean that their employment should be criminalised as slavery. This is no different.

“I just believe that we do, mainly women, a disservice to make white anglo saxon judgements about the 'freedoms' of some women to actually give informed and empowered consent in light of other socio-cultural considerations.”

That is begging the question, which is whether, assuming they do consent, it should be criminalised anyway. But if it were true, then the logic of non "anglo saxon" brains would work differently from ango saxon brains, and so on, and no law would be justified.

“Polygamy is always raised as an issue in reference to men taking on more wives. I don't see many articles arguing for women to be able to take on many husbands.”

No but that is not a reason to criminalise it if they do. But perhaps they don't want to as much. So what? Is that your business?

Suzieonline
“Some men, probably with the necessary help of Viagra, would find the legal, easily available prospect of different sexual partners very appealing no doubt.”

You seem to think it is an argument against it that men would like it. Your approach is degrading: should it be illegal too?

“Why not the other way around?”

Why not indeed? What reason can you give?

The fallacy in all the ‘degrading to women’ arguments is that they assume that what women want from marriage is the same as men.

If it’s not okay to treat women as sex objects, why is it okay to treat men as money objects?

Peter Hume <"If it’s not okay to treat women as sex objects, why is it okay to treat men as money objects?"

Sorry Peter, but where were we discussing treating men as money objects on this thread? I guess we could slip it in by saying most men may not be able to support multiple wives and many children, but then again, all the wives could work as well or they could apply for a truckload of welfare payments!

For the record, I don't like the idea of women treating men as sex objects, or men treating women as money objects either!

"The fact that we don’t like or don’t prefer our other options, doesn’t mean we have no other option. For example, most people don’t like to be unemployed. But that doesn’t mean that their employment should be criminalised as slavery. This is no different. "

Peter that argument is irrelevant. It is a bit like saying to someone you can die by hanging, fire or drowning but in actual fact they would rather not die. Criminialising employment is going off on a bizarre tangent that would serve no benefit to anyone.

Polygamy is a male fantasy (not for most I suspect) and would not contribute at all positively to the status of women in everyday life and that should be very much our business.

Peter I know what you are getting at completely in wishing to separate governments and judiciary from the private lives of citizens. However, I don't think this is one of those cases where you can say it does no harm, and for me that is the litmus test.

If we were to go down the path you suggest, how would you protect women in various cultural groups who are not as empowered either through religion, education or cultural norms, to enable her to leave the marriage. In some countries she would be killed. To argue that these 'options' are part of valid choices is avoiding the issue.

Yabby
Don't worry, I am not seeking to marry anymore husbands. :)

Much of this discussion has been focused on currently religious influenced emotional mores, particularly Keysar Trad's.
I would suggest that many of these response are naturally coloured by Christian influenced culture. Even those of us that are non religious.
I wouldn't be interested practicing any of the other options listed either.

However, I'm less convinced that people from different cultures who haven't been likewise inculcated with the same adverse attitudes would see the problem.

I have experienced a culture whereby while polygamy was practiced the women had a different concept of gender empowerment. They would find many of expressed western women's concerns, amusing.

Therefore I find absolutes in laws and cultures a contradiction in terms, particularly those primarily influenced/dominated by dogma based religiosity.

I think Legal eagle is looking for a more objectively based policy discussion.

I do note the western bias in respondents. No-one has considered multiple party gay marriages

Examinator wrote:

"No-one has considered multiple party gay marriages"

I beg to differ. See my post: Thursday, 8 October 2009 7:32:28 AM

As far as I am concerned anybody can marry anybody they like. For me it would be a most entertaining spectator sport. ;-D

Some of you may be interested to look at the discussion on my original blog post.

The thing many people single out about Trad is that he already gets state support to enable him to have 9 kids and (B) he'd probably expect state support to enable him to have 4 wives and 4 x 9 kids. No one wants to pay for that. I certainly don't.

Look, I don't really mind what people get up to in their private lives in their bedroom as long as it works for them, and it doesn't harm anyone else. But working out the latter is difficult. There are studies which show that kids brought up in polygynous or polygamous societies have worse outcomes than kids who are brought up in 2 parent households.

I see a distinction between saying "We're not going to criminalise this, but we're not going to encourage it either" and saying, "We legally sanction this as an equal option to marriage."

As a lawyer, I actually wonder such relationships should be governed by private contracts. That way, people know what they're getting into, they have to consent, there should be provision to get out of the relationship, and if it all goes pear-shaped there's some kind of guidance on how stuff is divided up.

Another thing - Pelican - I agree, if I were Trad's wife, I'd be furious. I'd be saying, 'You see this as an opportunity to go out and sleep with another woman in a religiously sanctioned way? But I can't go do the reverse? You total hypocrite.'

I do wonder what Trad's position is with regard to same sex marriage. I presume (given his religious views) that he is against it, just as he is against polyandry, but this is not morally consistent with his advocacy of polygyny.

Peter Hume<If it’s not O.K. to treat women as sex objects why is it O.K. to treat men as money objects>

If women provide all the financial requirements for themselves and a man’s children, and also do all the child care themselves, then what would be the man’s contribution.

If a man is doing an equal amount of child care he shouldn’t have to be the main money object but as statistics commonly point out a bigger percentage of women still do the main percentage of the domestic and child care work.

Suzeonline:"Some men, probably with the necessary help of Viagra, would find the legal, easily available prospect of different sexual partners very appealing no doubt."

No doubt.

It appears that most women find the prospect of an already-married man very attractive, too.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17619-its-true-all-the-taken-men-are-best.html

I quote:"The most striking result was in the responses of single women. Offered a single man, 59 per cent were interested in pursuing a relationship. But when he was attached, 90 per cent said they were up for the chase."

And, perhaps unsurprisingly: "Men were keenest on pursuing new mates, but weren't bothered whether their target was already attached or not. Attached women showed least interest and were slightly more drawn to single men."

It seems polygyny has something for everyone...

“Look, I don't really mind what people get up to in their private lives in their bedroom as long as it works for them, and it doesn't harm anyone else. But working out the latter is difficult. There are studies which show that kids brought up in polygynous or polygamous societies have worse outcomes than kids who are brought up in 2 parent households.”

It depends on the definition of harm of course. If we presume to decide on behalf of everyone else, there can be no objective standard. And by appealing to the population’s prurience and meddling what kind of sexual relation would not be criminalized? Why only simultaneous polygamy? Why not serial polygamy? Why not step-parenting? Why not prostitution? Why not adultery? Why not homosexuality?

Many indeed have been illegalized by exactly the process of reasoning offered by Pelican and Suzieonline. Their reasoning provides as much reason to criminalise marriage as bigamy.

They would have a system in which unequal laws were imposed on people according to whether P&S decided their imaginary subjects were of a different “culture” – whatever that’s supposed to mean. And women would be subject to unequal laws imposed on the basis that they are incapable of making decisions for themselves.

Underlying the arguments against bigamy is this piece of anti-male bigotry: that the man has no legitimate interest in having sex with other women. His sexuality should be the property of the wife; her sexual jealousy should be the basis of the law.

For all their talk of “harm” these are really just laws of sexual morality. They should be abolished.

People should be free to enter and leave whatever consensual relationship they want.

The criterion of harm is, between adults, whether they consent; and the ordinary criminal law applies to prevent the use of force or threats. As for children, the parents or those who undertake to care for them should have the responsibility, subject to the law against child abuse and neglect.

How would it work? People who want to marry should and need to be able to make binding settlements of property, which the Family Law Act currently actively undermines. Will people stuff up? Yes. Will there be messes? Yes. But no more than now, and probably much less than the unholy mess that is Australian family law.

The starting point should be freedom, and an ability to opt *in* to legal regulation if specifically wanted, not for the state to impose terms on people’s sexual relationships whether they want them or not, with little or no way to opt out.

Some would no doubt be disadvantaged by their failure to care for their own interests; which equity might remedy. But that problem would be far better, and more just, than for the whole population to be forced into a one-size-fits-all straitjacket designed by mediaeval monks, and be unable to negotiate their way in or out of the sexual relationships they want without attracting the dysfunctional anti-social unjust complexities of the family law, relationships law, and child support systems.

It we were equal, no-one would obtain a benefit from associating with others, and human society would not exist. It is not legitimate to try to use marriage law to bludgeon the sexes into a state of equality.

Antiseptic
I think the reason attached males are often more attractive to women, is because it means some other woman has put in the time and effort required to assess his character for suitability. The information women require is largely about character: safety, honesty, faithfulness, kindness, sympathy etc. But for men, the information they need to decide whether they want to have sex is mostly available visually.

You are right to consider the positive effects of bigamy. What about the additional fun? The health benefits of more and better sex? What about the economies of scale? What about the benefits in terms of child care? The benefits for married childless couples who don't want to divorce?

Peter Hume:"The starting point should be freedom, and an ability to opt *in* to legal regulation if specifically wanted, not for the state to impose terms on people’s sexual relationships whether they want them or not, with little or no way to opt out."

Bingo!

As matters stand the State, as embodied in the bureaucrats who administer and formulate the laws that surround matrimony and even co-habitation, has predetermined that women are incapable of negotiating on their own behalf as adults in sexual/reproductive matters. That, of course, is more to do with ideology than reality.

Whilst I've no desire to be held respopnsible for the upkeep of a harem of noisome women, the research I referenced may give some comfort to those who are.

If Keyars Trad is one of them, I wish him and his the very best of British luck. Perhaps they've a reasonable claim to it...?

Peter Hume and Anticeptic seem to like the idea of polygamy.

The reasons they seem to find it so attractive are probably more to do with the fact that women are generally opposed to the idea than anything else.

One of the reason's given in the United States as to why the practice of polygamy was outlawed was that there were many paedophiles attracted to the lifestyle and a never-ending supply of even younger brides each time, and their children.

It became so bad that the older paedophile 'harem owners' were known to kick out their own sons as they came of age, so they wouldn't be a threat to their Daddy's supply of young women and girls.

Yes, a wonderful world that would be.

Peter Hume,
"It (if?) we were equal, no-one would obtain a benefit from associating with others, and human society would not exist."
What? That doesn't just doesn't make sense. Equal in what sense? Society is more than a venue for power accumulation. I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

The problem with the statement in context is that it just doesn't prove your your assertions.

I also rather think you are putting the wrong emphasis on the functional purposes of permanent pairing. Your preoccupation with the animal instincts sex and breeding is only one facet. You are totally negating other factors including the the frontal cortex.

My experience with other cultures have shown me that permanent pairing occurs often regardless of the afore mentioned instinct, as it does without legal/cultural/religious constraints and encouragement(both Homo/hetro sexually).
You need to rethink your assumptions.

Many people have pretended that the first wife has total power to agree or disagree to polygamy and therefore it all comes down to her choice. I agree with Pelican that women's choices are influenced by a number of factors outside their control, meaning that they might-not feel that they are in a position to make the choices that they truly believe in.

suzeonline:"Anticeptic seem to like the idea of polygamy."

me (Sunday, 11 October 2009 12:47:23 PM): "I've no desire to be held respopnsible for the upkeep of a harem of noisome women"

erm...

Benk, many people find their choices constrained by circumstance.

Once again Trad shows what a fool he is.

The reason is very simple.
The ratio of boys born to girls is almost one to one.
Girls have a slightly greater number because boys are greater risk
takers and are more likely to die young.

If Trad had his way there would be very large numbers of men unable
to find life partners. This would be a prescription for disaster.
Has any society with polygamy ever reached a high standard of living
and human rights on their own efforts.
Not the middle east.

Peter Hume- <women would be subject to unequal laws imposed on the basis that they are incapable of making decisions for themselves.>

So you think women would choose to be in polygamous marriages if given a choice not imposed by religion or law and the lack of access to contraception. The reason lack of contraception is a deciding factor is because it spreads the burden of child rearing amongst the other wives.

Now back to the Western World where women DO have access to contraception. Women had a huge burden to carry (in having to bear multiple children) before 1960-1970 when the contraceptive pill was allowed so affairs and casual sex had a huge risk factor for them; not to mention looking after all those children never gave them the time.

The point I am making is; now with the freedom from constant childbearing and excellent contraception and their own money women would much rather have affairs with more men than be stuck in a polygamous relationship.

I think marriage is an archaic law really set up for the protection of children. I agree with you Peter that we need to rethink it in the child free society we have today.

Legal Eagle
I like legal eagles idea of a legal agreement between couples that has a legal date set down in it to stay married until the children go to school and then after that there should be binding legal agreement as to equal responsibility, that is equal child rearing and financial obligations in regards to the childrens welfare.

Men should not be allowed to father children and not be there to support the mother in the childs early baby years. That's when a lot of them don't do their bit so the first five years in any contract should be binding, where children are involved.

Anitseptic:- It appears that most women find the prospect of an already married man very attractive too.

This would seem to be a huge vote against single men by women in todays society. Or is it because rather than polygamy women are more interested in having affairs with different men too and think that married men are safer, kinder and less likely to cause problems if she decides to move on to another man. They are also less likely to boast about her to their friends as discretion is something they need in the relationship too.

Also if she doesn't want children there will be no pressure from a married man who already has children.

Sharkfin:

I'm appalled by the selfish and short-sighted nihilism in your comment:
"I think marriage is an archaic law really set up for the protection of children. I agree with you Peter that we need to rethink it in the child free society we have today."

Without children, society is doomed. People become more and more self-obsessed, atomistic, and ultimately, as they age - unloved and uncared for.

Many western societies are committing demographic suicide. Russia's population is shrinking by 750,000 a year. China's one child policy has produced a generation of little emperors - far more selfish than previous generations. Japan is slowly imploding. In much of the West, and in Russia too, only Muslims are producing large numbers of children.

How will Western pluralism, tolerance and liberalism survive in the face of this demographic timebomb?

Glorfindel, from a personal point of view, I think the chance to have children has been a gift, particularly as I have seen friends have difficulties. But I know others who find the idea of kids abhorrent. And I know people who have been "anti" kids, but have had a spectacular about-turn when their friends started having kids! It takes all sorts.

Marriage needs to be set up to cater for both the possibility of children or the possibility of no children. I see marriage as a joint venture, an acknowledgment that one would rather live with another person than alone, and that you are going to pool your resources. Whether it produces children or not does is immaterial. I would not say that infertile couples are any less married because they cannot have children, for example.

Just speaking historically, and in a certain context that is NOT aplicable today: Islam permitted polygamy as a way of making sure that the 'extra' women left over without husbands as a result of war would be able to live in relationships and would not be forced to beg, or to be burdens on ther families, or to have to esort to prostitution in order to have enough to eat.

This is obviously not the case today in most westerm societies, so one leg of the arguments in favour of polygamy falls away.

However there are a number of men (and women) who do not partner with someone of the other sex, so that in certain circumstances there can be more women (or men) available than potential marriage partners. Ie, there may be a 'market' for polygamy.

Last point that I would make here: nearly all recent research shows that men and women, after a period of marriage, have different sex drives. Bettina Arndt's 'Sex Diaries' shows this clearly. What other explanation can there be for there being many more female prostitutes than male? I would guess that many prostitutes' clients are married men who feel that they are not getting what they want at home (in spite of the fact that no-one ever died from not having sex). In some circumstances a couple may decide that to share female side of the sex in a marriage, whlst bringing in a live-in babysitter / housekeeper / female companion, may be advantageous.

This could be the basis of the 'sister / wife concept found in certain so-called Christian sects.

I don't think this is necessarily 'good', but in this post-modern world what is 'good' or 'bad'?

Dougthebear, are you saying that the reason why polygamy may work in our society is because women have lower sex drives than men, and thus men should have more than one wife to have sex with?
(yes, you manage to slip in the idea that it would be the women's fault if the men look for other wives!)

Will more frequent sex with multiple wives be enough to negate the myriad other problems that would come from having multiple wives?

You obviously think very little of men or their abilities to be monogamous!

Well said Suze. Doug's assumption is that men who are still having sex with their wives never have affairs or go to prostitutes? What about men who lose their sex drive?

Wouldn't it be better for the couples in question to work out why this part of the marriage has waned?

If polygamy is decriminalised we may as well throw out all the equal opportunity laws and anti-discrimination laws as well given that most of the posts are concentrating on what men want rather than what is better for the whole.

The only benefit polygamy had was in societies like the hard core Morman sects where a single women had no way of supporting herself under the law, and it was duty of men to ensure no women was left destitute.

I think we are a long way from this eventuality.

"The only benefit polygamy had was in societies like the hard core Morman sects where a single women had no way of supporting herself under the law, and it was duty of men to ensure no women was left destitute."
Actually polygamy has its strongest support in those societies where the numbers of fertile women greatly exceed the number of fertile males available for breeding. These societies are typically warlike in nature or are continually engaged in defending their very existence hence the need for a reservoir of single, fighting males. The Mormons faced a constant battle for survival against an intolerant majority;hence the need to build up their numbers.

I never actually said that it could, would or should work: if anyone can find where I said this or implied it please show me. I did say that some couples may make this choice: I didn't say it was a good choice.

Anyway, given that marriage in our society is in a state of decay - marriage no longer being marriage since 1975 when the marriage 'contract' was thrown out in favour of another model - and defacto relationships are widely accepted 'polygamy' doesn't have to be decriminalised: it can just be: so long as the people involved don't go through a marriage ceremony then they can form whatever model of relationship they want. I have already mentioned Richard Pratt and Jack Thompson's 'polygamy'. I am sure that there is more out there, just thge same way that for years two women living together in a same sex partnership pretended to be sisters, there are probably a number of couples with an extra person 'sgaring the house' who are doing more than eating breakfast together.

I am aware of some cases of women going out of their way to having children and living in intermitent domestic relationships with more than one partner.

check out
http://australiandivorce.blogspot.com/2008/08/federal-magistrates-court-adverse.html

and the judgement at

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FMCAfam/2008/784.html

see paras 98 to 105.

I have not been able to find any scholarly reserach into the sex drive differences between men and women (but please also note my statement that no-one ever died from a lack of sex) but Miranda Devine did a nice precis of Arndt's 'Sex Diaries' at

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/wifely-duties-spark-a-firestorm-20090401-9jpj.html

Glorfindel <Many Western Societies are committing demographic suicide; Without children society is doomed and ultimately as they age unloved and uncared for>

I agree, and have written articles asking who is going to be manning the stations without children.
They are also much more vunerable to attack by younger fitter armies or terrorists.

Nevertheless we are becoming a childless society, even because of the fact that a lot of people who do have children don’t have the 6 to 10children that they had a century ago. When I advocated private contracts between couples I was thinking in response to the fact that the government has just enshrined in law that any of the husbands or defactos other women on the side, can come in now and claim financial support, they don’t even have to live with them to do this. Does this also apply to boyfriends of the wife too.

It seems to me that this is a deal breaker when it comes to marriage and that women may decide it is not worth it. I was just exploring alternatives.

Challenging topic.

There is an interesting example in the US: there are 50,000 cases of bigamy/ polygamy in one state alone (South Dakota).
The question it raises is: what is the reference point for a legislator? The pure secular argument would say that consenting adults should do as they please similar to same sex marriages. But then who takes the burden of implications to society. On the other hand if the reference becomes people's belief system, its open for all sorts of interpretations.

Keysar Trad's note on polygamy stems from the 7th century when Mohammed, at the time a penniless warlord, tried to get the warring clans of Bedouins into a meaningful grouping by raiding & conquering nearby clans & carrying off the women & children as slaves. So heavy was the death rate amongst males that many of Mohammed's clan's females were left without a male "protector" without which, in this dry & unforgiving land, they would surely die. Allowing "... up to four wives - provided you could support them" made sense at the time, but Mohammed himself had many more that 4. He had a Jewish wife, another he married at the age of 6 and started sexual relation with at the age of 9, and another where he saw his daughter-in-law semi-clad and liked what he saw. He subsequently made his (step)son divorce her so that he could marry her too! Not a nice man!

Polygamy thus made sense at the time & in the place it started, but unlike much of radical Islam - particularly the radical Wahibism (Saudi version of Islam)- that only came about in the 1740's - it's place in a modern society is questionable.