Comments on: Keysar Trad: UK is right to recognise polygamy

By: Ruth

Ruth — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Trad’s quotation of the Old Testament and how many wives David and Solomon et al were allowed is ridiculous. In the days of cavemen men it was acceptable to bash women with a club and drag them back to the cave for sex - should we make that acceptable now too? I’ll be happy to accept men of any religious persuasion marrying up to four women provided the same courtesy is afforded to women to marry up to four men.

By: jan

jan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Oh sure, I’ll be interested in a considered discussion when polygamy, polyamore, or whatever you wish to call it, is legally and culturally open to both genders. Additional wives, lovers exist in other societies apart from Muslim countries just to our north; in such societies women can be offered jobs on the basis they also become the girlfriend/second wife of the bloke concerned. Legally, culturally, economically almost always on the blokes’ terms. Give us a break Keysar.

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Ruth, using strawman arguments like the caveman analogy doesn’t wash. Everyone gets hung up on this word “marry” If you want polygamy, or same sex, or whatever, just do it. It isn’t legal or illegal so long as you don’t do it officially.

By: Julie Jones

Julie Jones — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Keysar Trad might have a point. At the moment if a man has several wives who all have children the secon, third and fourth wife claim sole parent pension - although if the children are of school age there is the need to do voluntary work for 15 hours a week.

As far as superannuation and the like is concerned the money from the pension will be a nice little nest egg.

What this proposal doesn't take into consideration is that it is only rich men or welfare recipients who can afford to support multiple wives. There is no consideration for the women to have real freedom - I imagine he is quite happy to have the wives covered from head to toe and kept at home in the bosom of the family.

When Keysar Trad comes up with a plan to ensure that Moslem women can enter all aspects of society including mixed sex sporting and social events freely and not be limited by the constricting concept of "modesty" he might be worthwhile taking seriously. Until then this suggestion is just another in a long line of keeping women in their place.

By: stuart

stuart — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

unbelievable how many people refused to read the article before commenting. The author said in capital he was ‘NOT’ proposing anything, just mentioning what the UK has done.

By: Greg Adler

Greg Adler — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Some people do enjoy having a moral panic. Keyser specifically said he wasn't arguing for this in Australia.
But I can't see why in principle polygamy or polyandry could not be accepted as valid marriage forms if all parties involved were freely engaged in the practice.
The personal comments directed at Keyser are way off the track. As I know him he is a loving husband and father.
I might add that I am not a follower of Islam or of any religion. Also I am not involed in nor am I seeking a polygamous relationship for myself , In fact I have singularly failed in convincing any woman to maintain a long term monogamous relationship which is undoubtedly a tribute to the good sense and good taste of the women I have been involved with.

By: Quaser

Quaser — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Keysar, how many members does your society have? How many aren’t related to you? And why don’t you put a sock in it and stop embarrassing your own kind?

By: Denise deVreeze

Denise deVreeze — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Kaysar Trad, please don’t quote the bible to try to justify a proposal for an entirely new law which is of no benefit to women - or to men for that matter. Australian law is NOT based on what the bible says. Here we are as a society struggling to deal with the consequences of marriage breakdown and Kaysar wants a set-up which would quadruple the problem. Or is the implication that if men were legally allowed to have multiple wives everything would be just hunky-dory? And what, in practice, does “providing he has no fears about treating them equally” mean? If you are a man who wants more than one wife, you’re free to do it unofficially - find a mistress who’ll take you on. It can be expensive though because most mistresses know how to protect themselves financially -and they retain dumping rights.
I’ve seen elsewhere that Sheikh Chami is connected with this proposal as well - how disappointing.
My last word: ditto to jan’s comment.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Steve Martin, you’re quite right that cohabiting with multiple partners is not regarded as illegal, nor is there any reason why it should be, but when it comes to entitlements such as sharing superannuation etc, it’s a real can of worms to suggest that this should be opened up to multiple partners. For a start, if I had a mistress as well as a wife and I died (presumably of exhaustion), then it would open up a big dispute between these two and neither would come out a winner, whereas the current situation which is much better defined avoids this. While this can of worms is already open in the case of blokes who have children to multiple partners, entitlements in respect of multiple spouses would presumably have to be assessed based on all sorts of other factors (eg respective durations of relationships, contributions by the spouses to the material value of the household etc). I think lawyers would be the only real winners in your proposal.

By: John

John — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Keysar does humanity a good service by not shying from debate about Islamic doctrine and culture, including polygamy, unlike those Islamists among us who blindly accept religious leaders’ authority, even when this dictates the violent over-through of this nation whose liberal laws and culture have provided them shelter.
On the matter of truths let’s be clear that the question of polygamy in Australia arises from the desire of Islamic adherents to spread their DNA as far as possible. To some extent Ian (26/6) touches on this point - polygamy and the Islamic subordination of women have been keys to powering the spread of Islam since 600 AD. Even today violent Islamist activity is undertaken by sexually frustrated men, their minds manipulated by Islamic leaders and dogma to overlook the source of their anger: restriction of their natural human right to free association with women.
Those frustrated and ‘brain-washed’ male losers serve Islam by having their agitation cunningly channelled outwards – they become the vanguard for shafting Islamic sperm abroad in Jihad – a cause for which many waste their lives.
At the same time, Islamic law ‘protects’ women from liberal ways, and provides influential older Islamic men the tool of polygamy to monopolise women and through them spread their DNA.
Thanks Keysar, Australia remains a better place because of your open-mindedness.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

OK by me so long as polygamy is legally balanced by polyandry. Oh, and as I am a gay man in a same sex relationship for 37 years, a recognition by Islam of my long-term relationship! Pigs (deliberate insult) might fly.

By: Keysar Trad

Keysar Trad — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I really appreciate all the posters taking the time to have their input. This is great, this really justifies our agreeing with the "hack" program reporter Antoinette Chiha to speak on the topic. Keeping up to date with changes in human relationships is very important. Sweeping some under the carpet does no service to society.

I keep saying, whilst I would like this issue to be decriminalised, I do not have the confidence in political aspirants or governments not to harp on what they believe to be public opinion, so I will not for the time being, as I keep saying, make any representations whatsoever to this government on the issue.

I was tempted to add this comment because of Zachary King's comment in the C*ckups and corrections section. Zachary, please email me, personally, as emotionally devastating and simultaneously emotionally maturing as my personal experiences were, I have difficulty presenting them in interesting terms, they are nothing more than a collection of procrastinations, guarded responses to overtures, what ifs, and perhaps a series of regrets. One in particular led me to write hundreds of pages at the time, it led to a vocabular explosion which I had to release into dicta (copyrighted expression). Intellectually, I love the concept of polygyny, physically, I need to spend a lot of time at the gym to get some semblance of fitness back and financially, I really need a makeover.

God bless my former work colleague who in the early nineties used to say to me that the reason that female colleagues used to come to my workstation for a chat during work breaks was because I stirred their feelings of motherhood in that they would look at me as that cheeky little boy who needs a bit of discipline. Of course most of us could do with a little discipline in our lives. However, how can anybody cause pain to someone with my innocent sincere intentions? (smile)

Keep the debate going, I think with all this reflection and intellectualisation, we will all be broadening our horizons regardless of whether we agree or disagree.

Keysar

By: David M

David M — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It simple: "Marry" more than one wife - go to gaol.
Where will these bxxtards get off?
Most importantly.."do not collect $200"
The report from the UK referred to includes:
London, Feb.3 (ANI): The Gordon Brown Government has reportedly cleared a proposal that will allow husbands with multiple wives to claim extra welfare benefits.
Not on.

By: maree whitton

maree whitton — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Kayser - No, I dont agree with polygamy. No I dont think the UK did the right thing considering the massive cultural problems they already have. I believe the Australian taxpayer is already funding extra wives. I think there is a reason behind the multiple wives - its a lot easier to bring extra female cousins into this country, which means extra children. What a way to increase the Islamic numbers in this country.

By: gary stowe

gary stowe — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Keysar, mate, who are you trying to snow? I heard your interview on ABC morning radio and remember what you (and your wife) said. You were very clearly looking for a change in the law. You even used an allegory with business, saying we would not frown upon a business partnership of four people, so why a marriage? It’s absolutely amazing how far your view seems to have twisted through the course of the day. I suspect that a whole lot of your fellow Muslims got on your case and told you to start back-pedalling because you consistently damage their standing in the community. Think first mate, then talk.

By: Magistra

Magistra — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Sounds OK to me…I can keep the current bloke and get myself a couple of hot firm young studs and a gay guy who can cook…at least physiologically polyandry makes more sense than polygamy.

Seriously though Keysar, given the known limitations of the male (at least the known limitations of those over about 20) how can you be expected to keep several wives sexually satisfied without chemical help? Must the government provide Viagra as well as welfare benefits?

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Funny that all concerned in this name-calling exercise (no, ladies and gents it is neither a discussion nor an argument but only parallel noise making) are talking about religious concepts. As there is an argument, I suggest a fairly good one, that suggests that all religions are nothing more than various means of social and political manipulation and outworn philosophies that we should have abandoned long ago, surely there is a better way of dealing with this. Perhaps, those who want to marry and make promises that they will, in all probability, not keep do so - as many times as they like and in any direction. Those that would rather live together in peace - without hassle and “social” pressure - should also be allowed to do so. I know that I am attacking the religious market and the marriage market and the wedding market: isn’t it about time someone did?

By: Alison White

Alison White — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I’m not sure about the suitability of using the old testament as a mandate for the social acceptability of multiple wives. After all, according to genesis, didn’t Methuselah live to be 969 years old???

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Just read the last weeks New York Magazines cover story. Very interesting!!

By: Mick of canberra

Mick of canberra — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

To Catherine Priestley, may I propose marriage to you. I’ll be the slacker husband who plays golf most days, neglects the kids and doesn’t provide financial support. I’ve got a mate who will marry you and do all the right things. I can’t decide if Keysar is a dill, a comedian or a moron, but I hope my proposal covers them all. Yours Sincerely, Hubby No 23.

By: Ian McAuley

Ian McAuley — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Let’s look at the math of this. Consider a community of 100 men and 100 women. Those 100 women are married to 25 men, leaving 75 single men. There is plenty of research showing communities with an excess of single men have many social problems. Even Arafat relaized this — the only way he could de-commission the PLO and to stop those guys fighting was to get them married.

As Doug says, polygamy may be OK if balanced by polyandry, but among the Abrahamic religions there are no referneces to polyandry. And polygamy may have been an expedient measure when 3 out of 4 young men were killed in military campaigns. We need to think about these issues froma system perspective, not just from some individual examples. (Philosohiically, the argument for polygamy suffers from the “fallacy of composition” — OK perhaps in individual circumstances, but collectively unsustainable.)

By: JohnJames

JohnJames — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I want to run this past my wife! 700 wives and 300 concubines! How does he remember any anniversaries?

By: steve martin

steve martin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I imagine many would have a reaction like “No way, people come to Australia have to abide by Australian law etc etc”
That was my initial reaction,then I thought a little more about it. No one stops a man cohabiting with multiple partners in this country, and presumeably no offence is being committed. However the position of the non legally recognised partners is analagous to the position that same sex couples are experiencing with regard to superannuation and other entitlements that they miss out on until the law is changed.
So by all means allow these partners to also have shared entitlements as well.

By: Catherine Priestley

Catherine Priestley — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I think it’s a great idea PROVIDING It APPLiES EQUALLY, AND THAT WOULD MEAN THAT I COULD MARRY TWO MEN!

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I strongly agree with the other comments. If it’s a case of separate rules for men and women over who can marry multiple partners, it’s got no place in Australia. I’d have thought Islam was having a hard enough time in terms of its PR without this clown confirming that it’s a very sexist religion. Justifying it by referring to the Old Testament (itself a highly sexist but fortunately very outdated document) doesn’t make it better. Personally, I’m an atheist who regards all religion as being roughly equivalent to believing in imaginary friends, so this comment is not a case of me having a dispute with Islam on the basis of it disagreeing with my own religion (unless you regard atheism as a religious belief, which I don’t).