Soldato
Should it be practised in the Uk? Or should it be made legal?
Arguement for (My opinion off course)
We all (maybe most of us) want to have more than one woman to have relationship with and what not.
There is less divorce rates in countries who practise them.
One big and happy family.
Can help forms part of a social structure of a society.
Islam supports it.
So do some religions too. 
Arguement against.
It has never been done before, why do it now.
Larger families will get more benefit at expense of tax payers.
It will lead to several problems - Jealousy, envy etc within the family
etc.
These are just what i can think off for now.
Hmmm i just found this
Oh here is some more
Arguement for (My opinion off course)
We all (maybe most of us) want to have more than one woman to have relationship with and what not.
There is less divorce rates in countries who practise them.
One big and happy family.
Can help forms part of a social structure of a society.
Islam supports it.
So do some religions too. Arguement against.
It has never been done before, why do it now.
Larger families will get more benefit at expense of tax payers.
It will lead to several problems - Jealousy, envy etc within the family
etc.
These are just what i can think off for now.
Hmmm i just found this
Polygamy's Winners and Losers
POLYGAMY CREATES a clear social order, with distinct winners and losers. Let us look at how this works. A dominant male wins because he can reproduce with as many females as he can reasonably control. Thus, he can "spread his genes" far and wide, producing many more progeny than he would be able to do under a different sexual regime.
But low-status females are winners, too. This is because: 1) Even the lowest-status females get to mate; there are no "old maids" in a polygamous society. 2) Nearly all females get access to high-status males. Since there are no artificial limits on the number of mates a male can collect, all females can attach themselves to a few relatively desirable males.
The effect upon high-status females is approximately neutral, but the clear losers are low-status males, the "bachelor herd" that is shut out of the mating equation. In some species, like elephants, the bachelor herd forms a dispirited gaggle living relatively meaningless lives on the edge of society. In others, like various monkeys, the subdominants form all-male gangs that combine their efforts to steal females from successful males. In a highly social species, such as baboons, the bachelor herd has been incorporated into the troop. Subdominant males form a "centurion guard" that protects the dominant male and his harem from predators. Among themselves, meanwhile, they engage in endless status struggles, trying to move up the social ladder toward their own mating possibilities.
Altogether, then, polygamy is a very natural and successful reproductive system. Since all females mate, the reproductive capacity of the population is maximized. There is also a strong selective drive toward desirable characteristics. As the operators of stud farms have long known, allowing only the swiftest and strongest males to breed produces the most desirable population.
Yet despite the clear reproductive advantages of polygamy, some species have abandoned it in favor of the more complex and artificially limiting system of monogamy. Why? The answer seems to be that monogamy is better adapted to the task of rearing offspring. This is particularly true where living conditions are harsh or where the offspring go through a long period of early dependency. The task is better handled by two parents than one. Quite literally, a species adopts monogamy "for the sake of the children."
Among animals, the most prominent example is birds. Because the fertilized egg is laid outside the female's body, a long period of nesting is required. This ties the male to the task of nurturing. Most bird species are monogamous through each mating season, and many mate for life.
Once mammalian development moved the gestating egg back inside the female's body, however, the need for "nesting' disappeared. With only a few exceptions (beavers, gibbons, orangutans), mammals are polygamous.
Yet as human beings evolved from our proto-chimp ancestors, the record is fairly clear that we reinvented monogamy. Present-day hunter-gatherers--who parallel the earliest human societies--are largely monogamous. Only with the invention of horticulture did many societies around the world revert to polygamy. Then, when animals were harnessed to the plow and urban civilizations were born, human societies again became almost exclusively monogamous. This wandering pattern of development has been the cause of much confusion. When monogamous Western European civilizations discovered the primitive polygamies of Africa and the South Seas in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, they assumed that the earliest human civilizations had been polygamous and had later evolved into the "higher" pattern of monogamy. It was only with the discovery of monogamous hunter-gatherers that the mystery was finally resolved. Rather than being an earlier form, polygamy is actually a later development in which many cultures have apparently become sidetracked. Both the earliest and the most advanced (economically successful) human civilizations are generally monogamous.
What has made monogamy so successful a format for human cooperation? First and foremost, monogamy creates a social contract that reduces the sexual competition among males. The underlying assumption of monogamy is that every male gets a reasonable chance to mate. As a result, the do-or-die quality of sexual competition among males abates. When one male can collect many females, mating takes on a deadly intensity. With monogamy, however, a more democratic outcome is assured. The bachelor herd disappears.
Second, because monogamy assures the possibility of reproduction to every member of the group, a social contract is born. One need only consider the sultan's harem--where male guards must be eunuchized--to realize that a society that practices polygamy has an inherently non-democratic character. No offer can be extended to marginal or outcast members that entices them to be part of the group. Under monogamy, however, society can function as a cohesive whole.
This is why, under monogamy, other forms of cooperation become possible. Males and females may pair off, but they also maintain other familial and social relationships. Both males and females can form task-oriented groups (in primitive societies, the line between "men's" and "women's work" is always carefully drawn). As society becomes more complex, men and women frequently exchange roles and, although there is always a certain amount of sexual tension, males and females can work together in non-mating settings.
Other social primates have never reached the same level of complexity. Gibbons and orangutans are monogamous--but almost too much so: mated pairs are strongly attached to each other, but live in social isolation, rarely interacting with other members of the species. Gorilla bands generally ignore each other--except when males raid each other's harems. Baboon troops are more organized and task oriented, often encompassing as many as fifty to a hundred individuals. But behavior is rigidly hierarchical. Females are kept at the center of the troop, under close supervision of the alpha male and his associates. Subdominant males guard the periphery. Only the alpha and an occasional close ally mate with females as they come into heat.
Perhaps the most interesting attempt at creating a more complex society is among our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. Chimps practice a polymorphous polygamy, where every female takes care to mate with every male. Sex takes place in public and is relatively noncompetitive. When a female comes into estrus, her bottom turns bright pink, advertising her receptivity. Males queue up according to status, but every male, no matter how low on the social ladder, is allowed to copulate.
This creates its own social harmony. For males, it reduces sexual rivalry. Within the "brotherhood" of the tribe, there is little overt sexual competition (although it persists in other subtle ways). As a result, male chimps cooperate in establishing territories to exclude other males and occasionally hunt smaller animals such as monkeys.
The system also creates an advantage for females. Within a polygamous social group, one of the greatest hazards to child-rearing is male jealousy. The male owner of a female harem constantly guards against the possibility that he is wasting energy protecting the offspring of other males. When a new male lion displaces the former owner of a pride, he immediately kills off all the young in order to set the females to work reproducing his own offspring. The heads of polygamous monkey clans do the same thing.
But with chimpanzees, things are different. By taking care to mate with every male, a female assures each male member of the troop that he might be the father of her offspring. By "confusing paternity," females create a safe harbor for themselves, within which they are able to raise their offspring in relative tranquillity.
These techniques of unrestricted sexuality and indeterminate paternity have been tried from time to time in small human societies, notably among small religious and political sects. However, they have generally been a failure. The difficulty is that we have eaten too much of the tree of knowledge. We are too good at calculating which progeny are our own and which are not. (Child abuse and infanticide are most common when a man doubts his paternity.)
Rather than living in collective doubt, we have developed complex personalities that allow us to maintain private sexual relationships while sustaining a multilayered network of relatives, friends, acquaintances, associates, co-workers, and strangers with whom our interactions are mainly non-sexual. The result is the human society in which we all live.
Oh here is some more
Given that all types of relationships seem to be valid these days, can anyone tell me what, exactly, is wrong with polygamy? In my view, polygamy has many things going for it. It can confer a number of distinct advantages!
For example, instead of one wife having to wash the dishes before drying them up, with polygamy, you can have one wife doing the washing, and the other one doing the drying.
Efficiency! Speed!
And, further, if you've got three wives, then the tea can be made at the very same time! So, you don't have to wait so very long for it.
Satisfaction!
And just think of all the time that this polygamy idea would save for EACH of the wives. Instead of doing three chores each, they would each only have to do just one!
And the same kind of tripartite division of labour could also be done with many other things.
The vacuuming, the dusting and the window cleaning could all be divided EQUALLY into three separate parts, just like Caesar did with Gaul!
And isn't this what women actually say that they want when they are - as is their custom - galloping along in full whinge mode?
Equality, and a reduction in the housework?
So. Don't knock it!
I once saw a CH4 programme about polygamy in West Africa and the women were almost ecstatic about it. And sharing the chores with each other was one of the most attractive parts.
Of course it was!
You see. Just as there is a herd of cows to serve and cater for each bull, men and women were designed for polygamy.
This is why, for example, women who live together menstruate together.
The evolutionary idea behind this is to ensure that no matter how many women you have flustering about you, you only have one bout of PMS to deal with every month.
Clever eh?
You only have to make yourself scarce for about three or four days at a time!
And this, of course, is why the men became hunters.
The mammoths, the crocodiles and the sabre-toothed tigers were nothing but tame fluffy bunnies in comparison to the frenzied histrionics and arguments back home during what the men called in hushed tones and frightened whispers, 'That bloody period'.
And this is why the men said meekly, "OK. We're off now. We won't be long. Just off to get you some food. Don't wait up."
And, banded together for protection, they hightailed it out of the place as fast as they could.
You see. Men would not survive polygamy for very long if women who lived together menstruated at different times.
They would be driven mad!
They would not be able to cope!
They would rather die!
And this is why Nature positively insisted that women who lived within 100 yards of each other harmonised their manic cycles of spite.
To give the men who lived with them a psychological break.
A period of rest.
A patch of calm before the evil storm.
And in order to ensure that at least some of the men would survive the cruel onslaughts and the seemingly endless hysteria, the periodicity of women's moodswings was also engineered by evolution to occur on a monthly basis in correspondence with the phases of the moon - hence the word 'lunatic'.
And this gave the men a fighting chance.
A chance to escape.
Looking at the moon enabled them to figure out in advance when it was time to vamoose.
But there was a problem.
The clouds would often hide the moon from view. And this would create general alarm among the menfolk. And deep panic would spread quickly throughout the village whenever the moon was out of sight.
The men would gather wide-eyed in the dark clutching their spears and wetting their loin cloths. "Do we go? Do we stay? What on earth shall we do? Oh God! Why hast thou forsaken us?"
Indeed, it was because their womenfolk became so inordinately deranged from time to time that men were finally driven to invent clocks and calendars. And these, Oh Joy, helped them better to prepare for the tidal surge of fuming hormonal vapours that would periodically and swiftly engulf the village like an evil menstrual smog, choking off any peace and good-will that might, perchance, have sneaked in among the villagers during the previous three weeks.
"We'll have none of that pleasantness around here!" the women would spit in unison.
And some men late at night started drawing complicated graphs and charts to figure out the meanings of the senseless tantrums and the spontaneous rages.
But - apart from the relatively trivial discovery of Mathematics and Astronomy - to no avail.
And others founded great religions in order to answer the thousands of questions that seemed absolutely impossible to answer without causing great offence to women.
But - apart from the rise of Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc - to no avail.
Others gave up in despair and became monks or sailors.
They preferred their lonely cells or the high seas to the hysterical nonsense back home.
"We would rather live in the dark and neither see nor talk to anyone all day," said the monks.
"We would rather starve and then be eaten alive by sharks," said the sailors.
"No way are we going back there!" they all yelled angrily as they trooped off into the unknown.
And so it was that many villages lost the cleverest of their menfolk.
And the ones who remained in the villages were therefore forced to divide the surplus women among themselves.
Of course, the Chief had the first choice of women. And he always chose all the pretty ones.
Every last one of them.
The next in rank had the second choice. And he mostly chose the women who possessed a good set of teeth and gums and, of course, a decent pair of bazookas.
The next in rank usually chose the women who could lift heavy objects and build walls.
And so on, down the hierarchy it all went, until those at the bottom, well, needless to say, they were not very happy at all. They often killed themselves before the week was out, or they fled hotfoot into the hills in keen pursuit of a hermit's life.
And so it was that, every few months or so, the dwindling number of remaining men had to gather themselves together, yet again, in order to parcel out the ever-renewing surplus of womenfolk.
And this was not a particularly pleasant experience, because while the available stocks were plentiful, their quality was now unbelievably low.
"Goodness me. Look at that rabble over there. Have you ever seen anything like it?"
"Heaven forbid."
"Holy Moses."
"When does the next boat leave?"
And this is how polygamy came to be the natural state of affairs.
By capitalising on men's chivalry and their willingness to provide a home and shelter for even the most undesirable of spare womenfolk, all the women of the village were finally able to wangle some advantage for themselves.
And it has been the same ever since.
So, in summary, polygamy could be the answer to many of today's marriage problems because it definitely has the backing of menstrual evolution, and it gives every woman access to a man and a home.
And this is what women really need if they are to be fulfilled fully and fulsomely. They need a man and a home to attend to, even if they are only allowed access to a part and a fraction thereof.
You see. Women are very malleable in this respect. And they can easily be trained by drawing up simple timetables and rota-systems that can be pinned to walls or placed on pillows.
Provided that the instructions are kept short and simple, they can often figure them out.
And these days, of course, from a man's point of view, with many wives - preferably four - one or two of the wives could actually be sent out to work, and the remainder could stay at home to look after the kids.
In fact, the wives could ALL be allowed to choose! And so they could ALL be happy! And, if they all decided to go out to work for a living, then that would be fine too!
After all, with that kind of money coming in, you could always employ a Swedish nanny in a short skirt called Helga who could stay at home all day and deal with the kids.
She would be an added bonus for the whole of the family!
And shopping, of course, would also be a piece of cake.
Two of the wives could go to the supermarket every week, and one of them could go to the liquor store - and this would give you the extra time that you always wanted for a few more rounds of golf.
Life would be soooo much easier for the five of you. (Or, possibly, for the six of you, if you have Helga.)
But what about sex? - everyone asks. Wouldn't sex cause a problem for polygamists?
No way Hosé.
Hell no!
Think about it.
Instead of having to look at the same face every night and every morning, you would actually get a choice of faces.
True; it could sometimes be tough to make the decision, but then this is exactly what the men were designed for in these polygamous relationships - to take the tough decisions!
To contemplate.
To ruminate.
To advocate.
To stipulate!
And if the women ever started bickering with each other, having been fired up by some of their typically insane jealousies, then you could simply let none of them into your bed for that night.
"Get out! Get out! The lot of you.
"I am tired of these interminable disputes and petty squabbles.
"And please stop pushing and shoving! That is no way for any wives of mine to behave.
"No. I'm sorry. That's it! You shall all have to sleep in the dormitory tonight.
"Not one of you shall be allowed to pleasure me this evening.
"Out! Out!"
Equality, you see!
Fairness. Justice. Even-handedness.
This is the way that you must handle it.
(And, of course, there is always the possibility of Helga in the next room!)
So what, exactly, are the disadvantages of polygamy in this day and age, eh?
After all, in communities where they practise polygamy, there are many more women who practise it than there are men!
So, there must be something in it for them.
. But seriously cant see the big thing about having more than one woman imho.
Before anyone start jumping on me and saying "El all you ever talk about is race"...Let me explain. Im expecting plenty of people possibly from first world to say no no no because it is something foreign or not allowed here with current laws. 
