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.