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.