The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The more the merrier? > Comments

The more the merrier? : Comments

By Katy Barnett, published 7/10/2009

Keysar Trad: 'A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalise that into a commitment for life? Why should 'bigamy' be a crime?'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All
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?
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 7 October 2009 2:50:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 7 October 2009 2:57:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“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.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 7 October 2009 3:06:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 7 October 2009 3:41:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 7 October 2009 4:41:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Dougthebear, Wednesday, 7 October 2009 5:01:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy