Banjo:

I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to practice Polygamy in this day and age!

The world is already overpopulated in relationship to it`s ability to provide natural resources to ensure continuity of the devouring human race.

I think sanity now requires worldwide implementation of the two child maximum policy, ( and to hell with the Catholic Church and it`s insane postulating!) and in the not too distant future a further restriction toward the one child only family, if we are to retain reasonable conditions on an already depleted planet.

Let us accept reality,...breeding is an inherant self-satisfying luxury, engendered in nature to ensure the survival of the species, ...today a threat to the future survival of the human race!

There is no need for anyone today to be producing "unplanned or unwanted children"....that situation is either sheer laziness or simple self indulgence, without any consideration of the consequences!

So if I've got the points made so far correct
- It costs taxpayer less for subsequent supported wives than for the first. Given that there is no net gain in the number of women that seems to indicate that polygamy should be a net saving to the taxpayer.
- Discrimination may be an issue in relation to the first point but even if that was successfully challenged it is unlikely to result in more money per supported wife.
- Culturally people who practice polygamy may also have large families (as do some other groupings. Still the same mumber of womb's around so polygamy itself may not have much impact although it seems to me the births per womb ratio might be reduced in polygamous families compared to others with similar cultural values but only one supported wife. It's hard to find a house and or car which can cope with 24 kids (4 wives with 6 kids each). Especially so if you are relying on government persions to support the extra wives.

So what's the downside?

R0bert

Hi R0bert

As I said in my original post, I see no downside. People should be free to make whatever consensual living arrangements they desire.

What we do need however is clarity on the legal position of polygynous families.

Cupcake,

Almost right. Polygamy is actually the parrot Olympics. (Polly Gamey)

No cuphandle that's pygamy.

Cuphandle,
I do not personally see anything wrong with polygamy, but I think it more suited to societies where the male is still lord and master and the females are oppressed.

In our society women have equality and I think a man would have a lot of trouble with control where the women know they have rights. I also think the big loser would be the first wife because when a young couple first marry it is usual they do not have a lot financially. Over time they become more financially secure and in many cases the wife assists greatly in this. It seems that only men that are financially secure take on additional wives. Therefore the additional wife or wives get the benefit of the improved financial position.

After making do and helping her husband get ahead financially the first wife loses out while the husband displays his wealth by taking another wife. We tend to display wealth by a better house, boats or a flash car and things that the wife can enjoy as well.

With polygamy a wife, no matter how much she contributed to their wealth, would have to share the estate with the other wife or wives.

This is just a couple of drawbacks that come to mind, but having a affair or keeping a mistress does not seem anywhere near as honest as taking a second wife. I don't understand why a man would burden himself with an additional wife, but apparently some do.

Given the gender imbalance in China, it would not surprise me if polyandy came into being in China. They seem rather pragmatic people.

I can see a lot worse cultural practices than polygamy.

Oh well, all those legal contradictions just indicate the shaky grounds of the relation between state and family.

One's family and its structure is a personal affair. Governments should better stay clear out of that.