The need for polygamy originally was to protect women within the family who had lost their husbands, or when men perished in fighting and there were more women than men. The latter particularly applied to Mormons who were travelling and encountered Native Americans.

Although the customs last, this does not apply today. Additionally, the man had to be a position to care for more than one wife.

We have political activists in Australia among the Muslim community who wish to have multiple wives. They are a larger group than the homosexuals wishing to have their relationship registered with the State. Currently they get around our laws by registering one as a wife and having several mistresses. These mistresses are able to claim single parent support. If multiple marriage were adopted then it would change their status, and in our society not bring shame. The laws would outlaw any discrimination.

If we believe in gender equality then women can have multiple husbands and the homosexual and free love community can have multiple spouse of either gender or both.

It has been the Christian teaching that has given us that the man is to be, "the husband of one wife". This has raised the status of women as equal, whereas Muslims believe women are not equal to a man. The Gay Pride movement wish to destroy the biological relationships of family and define it on the basis of people who love each other and live together.

Josephus, "Currently they get around our laws by registering one as a wife and having several mistresses. These mistresses are able to claim single parent support"

The previous Labor government legitimised bigamy through its re-jigging of laws (definition in particular) affecting de factos. That was contrary to the will of the people and law of very long standing which still exists that makes bigamy unlawful.

Now there is the ridiculous and very unfair circumstance where (say) a woman who is having an affair with a married man with a family can make a claim against the family's assets and income. Several girl friends can do it and it doesn't matter that they entered into an affair with the man knowing full well he was already married.

Yet another unintended negative outcome of political idealism over-ruling common sense and tradition, and just because the feminists who were active behind the scenes could see a man's wallet, which to them is an irresistible target.

onthebeach,

If a man had a child by a mistress, I think there would be grounds for claiming. Surely a man of some integrity would ensure his child was provided for. On the other hand, should a man be sufficiently wealthy, he should (I feel) provide for a mistress and a his child.

However, as for women coming out of the woodwork and claiming against a man's assets and estate, I think that is appalling. They can't justifiably use the excuse that having given some "time" to a man they have entitlement. After all, these women are obviously free agents, irrespective of emotional entanglements.

The Yemen is drafting a new Constitution now outlawing child brides and defining the marriage age at 18. I am not sure if the bride has any say in her marriage as yet under the new Constitution.

Previously once a girl reached pubity [9 - 14 years]she was given by her parents to an older man as a bride. This was not more than sexual abuse of children, and in Muslim minds the foretaste of paradise. Muslim male martyrs are promised 40 young virgin wives in paradise.

Pedophilia is not criminal in many countries, and can easily be lobbied for in any Democratic Government the same as homosexuality - that children have equal rights as adults; otherwise they are discriminated against.

It depends on whose values and principles we uphold.

Malcolm Turnbull has called for a "free vote" in parliament on same sex marriage. Such a pity this man is not the PM today. I don't always agree with Turnbull by I do find him a person of principle, extremely rare in both the Liberal and Labor parties, not so in The Greens of course.
I didn't know where to post this, as there isn't a thread on "The Ridiculous" so here it is.
The Catholic Church is to hold a Synod of Bishops in Rome on the vexing questions of morality. This talk fest of the hierarchical old farts of the Catholic Church will see them pontificate, and no doubt, pass on their wisdom in the form of commandments to the rest of use poor retched souls. This gathering of old farts, men only of course, will enlighten us with their collective knowledge on every thing from same sex marriage to abortion. Naturally this will all be the word of "God". Lucky us.
Are the 'Hells Angles' planning a talk fest on law and order? About as useful.