Brian Ross wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 2:04pm:

Jack Thompson versus Mo hammered and his 1.4 billion sons and bints. You are that stupid. 

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2020 at 6:17pm:


Some may.  The majority don't, FD. 

Easy as pie - the blokes can root to their heart's content without responsibility, and the sheilas can 'do things their way' and be 'strong independent women' on the taxpayer dime!  Just like here and now!!

Just like the Abos, eh?

Couldn't be simpler... only applies in the West though - those easy conditions to actually do that..... the real bottom issue (sic) is pure desperation and high infant mortality rates and deaths of women in childbirth....

Gotta keep that ol' tribe going somehow!  Women are expendable, after all - just cattle and a tradable commodity .... always get another one at the drop of a jihad... spoils of war, innit?

Igor - my evil identical twin - how many of those gorgies on the ABC are happy to share their life and hubby in this way?  What about the senile Ita Buttwose?  She happy with that?

Oh - NIMBY... OK... gotcha... so everyone else's back passage is all right, eh?  Good to know when our educated elitists on extravagant salary and perks are telling us how we all need to live...

camera , Valkie?

Historically, Polygamy had been in practice in nearly all continents well before and after the arrival of religion in the equation.  In fact, early Christianity and Islam never actually was against or for monogamy nor polygamy.  That has alot to do with the region in which these religions have originated, in conflict areas, men tend to die off easier, women usually have less rights, and cant really survive without a man back then.  And so, the natural order of things would be for a man to take on more wives. 

However, that it self creates more issue, as it entrenches further the unequal place of woman in the society. 

I believe the we are in the process of change as part of development of our civilization.  When we were primitive, polygamy enable us the edge to reproduce, and for our race to carry on.   As our technology develops, and so is our morals.  And hence, a move away from polygamy to monogamy to recognize equal rights regardless of sex.   The next step would be, when we reached a world society with relative equal rights between individuals, then we would reach a state of - I am going to make a new word:  Panogamy.  Meaning, that any woman and any men have the right to marry or not marry as many or as less, but they all protected equally by the law.

chimera wrote on Feb 17^th, 2020 at 11:22am:


I am not aware Panogamy is actually a word yet, with definition.  But I believe, it would just matter of time, before humanity will move into a more secular and science based society.  Panogamy of those times, would be about the rights of individual rather than the whole religious paradigm we have now.   Or perhaps religion will continue to evolve to remain relevant.   That society would be probably a few hundred years away at least.

chimera wrote on Feb 17^th, 2020 at 12:11pm:


I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing.  I have talking about the practice of marriage, e.g. legal binding activity between two individuals.   And I think the original ABC article quoted is about marriage as well.   I have a feeling that you are referring to sex between different individuals.   That is already happening right now.  Its called tinder.