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.