I am ofcourse not arguing that polygamy is the best left alone. The very idea and practice of polygamy existed before and during the time colonial, union and apartheid governments. To better understand why it was left in place a reading of how different colonial powers decided to handle the beliefs and practices of their ‘colonial subjects’ is necessary. This is not to situate the argument in history but merely a general scope of why things are as they are.

The idea that polygamy is practiced by some priviledged man in some cultures is strange. Not all the cultures under Customary Law practice it, even though the relevant Customary Marriages Act (which most submit to) allows. This is why the defence by some in saying that ‘ it is my culture’ can be equally countered by others saying ‘ it is not my culture’ although both/all falling under Customary Law [if you do not know this, it is best to acqaint yourself with African cultures or get friends from each in South Africa - you will be surprised to note the differences].

The only thing that should be of concern, legally speaking, is whether there is any harm being caused – this is after all fundamental to deciding on the constitutionality of polygamy. So far only misinformed perceptions and speculation is what proponents for its unconstitutionality and the institution of polyandry seem to put forward [because i can't do it, it is not fair...whiny]. The practice of polygamy is not happenstance nor serendipitous – there is need to look at what social function it fulfills and whether this is contrary to the constitution, not because some people whose culture(s) do not allow for polygamy, now want it because there is section 9. We seem to forget that the common law is western-value based and the Marriages Act its by-product, so blame it on your culture if it does not let you swing. not the law.

I have no idea how you got here;

“So the way I see it is polygamy is here to stay but it should also be balanced with polyandry”

and my terrible headache did not help me either…

@Fred – agreed too – why is Modjadi regarded as an exception if that’s the norm in her culture??

So, bottom line, we have a cultural precedent in SA for both polygamous and polyandrous unions, so why is only polygamy permitted in terms of the law??? A bit of selective law-making again …

(1) Polyandry

1.1 The first problem we have here is that RSA legislation, notably the Marriage Act of 1961, prohibits marrying more than one spouse.

The reason for this is your laws and your country “south africa” as you know it was founded on Christian believes, I believe Christianity is still the dominating religion here in South Africa.

Sine
“1.2 The second one relates to the lack of any other basis upon which the introduction of polyandry could be based. It has historically and culturally never been part of our law or culture. What could the reason for introducing it now be?”

There are actualy a few reasons but one has to dive in scientific research now.

Woman as we know them have historically and culturally been discriminated against in all cultures in all religions.

It is only up until modern times females are on an equal footing as man, they can vote, the can join the military and carry a service rifle and go to war, they can even start up or move up the ranks in business and become directors, CEO’s and so forth, Woman can even now run for presidency.

One of the prereqs for Polygamy is the economcal factor, can a Man support equaly more wives?

The same can be applied to a Woman who is financialy secure and is in a postion to support 5 husbands equaly.

The problem comes into play and this is the scientific bit, its called the laws of attraction. Ever since man lived in caves, females were attracted to the man who can bring the biggest meat home, the same is still applied in modern times, females are attracted to successful men. A scientific research was done in the states where they took 3 guys and gave them fake salary incomes basicaly their “NET WORTH” it noticed that a male who would be deemed attractive was deemed unattractive becuase he earned a lower salary than what an 18yr old can earn.

But yet this is the modern world where woman can now no longer rely on men to bring the biggest meat home, they can go out and get it themselves, so you will find females who marry men who earn a lower salary than a woman and the woman becomes the head of the household. The mere fact a woman is head of a household is once again against christian believes is God is head of man and man is the head of woman.

The other side of things is the very nature of Polygamy and the flaw involved in it is purly simple and that is it can be seen as discriminatory against men itself.

If there are 50% of females in society and 50% of males in society and polygamy is widly practiced. it becomes discriminatory towards men for equal chance for reproduction and breeding and the very nature why we actually here on earth to pass your genes on. The only way then to balance this out would be to introduce polyandry.

But as I mentioned the only way to introduce it would be by consensus.

Take gay relationships it wasnt cultural or historical in South Africa. only until modern times but yet it became legal for gay couples to marry, this only happend by consensus.

The way of life is changing if we take another approach we look at bisexuality. what about Bisexuals to marry?

It is perfectly ok for a man to be in a relationship with two bisexual girls ( How many men would love for this to happen?) but society frowns upon a woman involved in a relationship with a woman involved with 2 bisexual guys.

So the way I see it is polygamy is here to stay but it should also be balanced with polyandry

Just another thought … even if polyandry isn’t part of our history or culture, if polygamy is permitted within the framework of a constitution that protects equal rights, then the very fact that it IS permitted is surely grounds for arguing that polyandry should be permitted by equal measure.