The Instigator
Ralyx
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ButterCatX
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Polygamy Should Be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ButterCatX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 673 times Debate No: 72186
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Ralyx

Pro

In the wake of the LGBT rights movement, I want to scope out ahead of the civil rights curve a bit. Like gay marriage, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with polygamy, such that it should specifically be prohibited by our government. When you strip away any imposed religious connotation, marriage in a secular society is essentially just a social contract like any other, the terms and conditions of which should be decided solely by the parties involved. I will stipulate, however, that I believe one should be an adult before entering into any binding social contract, marriage or otherwise. If it's a contract between two or more consenting adults, I simply see no suitable justification for governmental interference.

The proponent should attempt to argue that the American government has no overriding interest sufficient to warrant a legal ban on polygamy.

The opponent should attempt to argue that the American government has some overriding interest sufficient to warrant a legal ban on polygamy.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Responses/additional arguments
Round 4: Same as Round 3
Round 5: Concluding statements (no new arguments/evidence)
Debate Round No. 1
Ralyx

Pro

As I summarized in the opening, my argument is one of an unobtrusive government, and our right to privacy. If the government has no overriding social concerns, then it should politely stay out of its citizens' personal affairs.

The problem is that because marriage is such an ancient and established practice, most people have never tried to properly consider what marriage is in the context of society. Fundamentally, marriage is a type of social contract. Like any contract it has terms and conditions, such as mutual loyalty, housing arrangements, or sexual arrangements, which are agreed to by all parties involved (ideally, though forced marriages still exist). Unfortunately, marriage has become so commonplace that not many people actually consider or deliberate these terms or their consequences explicitly, which usually leads to a lot of problems. People have forgotten that they are free to define these terms for themselves.

As a result of marriage becoming the primary social unit, it has become convenient for governments to specifically recognize marriage in order to provide certain administrative benefits and services. These include such things as hospital visitation rights, property management, and tax considerations. However, this raises issues of equality and civil rights by tying these benefits to the institution of marriage, with people becoming dependent on the specific terms of government recognition. This is why we have had to expand the legal recognition of marriage to include interracial and gay marriage. A better, longer-term solution, however, would be to dissociate these legal benefits from marriage, and instead establish them independently.

Traditionally, one of the largest (or rather most vocal) oppositions against expanding the definition of marriage has come from religious conservativism. We have seen this before with interracial marriage, then again with gay marriage. Unfortunately for them, none of their arguments actually have any substance beyond "this is bad because we say it is" (or, more accurately, this is bad because we say that some ancient people wrote down that our unknowable deity says it is"). Fortunately, this country runs off of freedom of (and from) religion and separation of church and state, meaning that our government can never and should never use such claims as a basis for law.

As a result, people have attempted to provide secular justifications for restricting marriage. Among the most popular of these seem to be the claims that anything other than the standard will somehow be inherently unstable and any children raised in such a household will suffer horribly in some fashion. In nearly all of these cases, however, these assertions have been found to be baseless once actually investigated and quantified with empirical data. In other words, they do not stand up against actual evidence. We have already seen this with interracial and gay marriage, so there is no reason to assume that polygamy or bigamy will be any different without suitable evidence.
ButterCatX

Con

Thank you for this great discussion, Pro.
The Government has sufficient interest in banning polygamy. Polygamy raises a man's chance of committing crimes, such as robbery or rape. Polygamy also affects the how many females are able to be married as men would tka eup the number of women available leaving many men without a wife. The remaining men would end up performing riskier behaviors to attempt to gain a partner. Many of the polygamous men would also spend less time bolstering their relationship with their children, because they would spend more time looking for a mate.

This will also decrease the power of women and they will become more bargaining tools, than person as they will be sold of to wealthy men. Men will also learn to not respect women as they are growing up in a scoiety where women will recive little respect in front of them. Women will be degraded throughout and sink down in status.

Polygamy: Marriage between one man and many women. Is what I will argue, so do not cite me on this part as there are much better sources on this meaning.

http://huntergatherer.com...;
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca...;
http://marginalrevolution.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Ralyx

Pro

Ralyx forfeited this round.
ButterCatX

Con

I liked this roud it was fun.
Debate Round No. 3
Ralyx

Pro

Ralyx forfeited this round.
ButterCatX

Con

Continue arguments and statements.
Debate Round No. 4
Ralyx

Pro

Ralyx forfeited this round.
ButterCatX

Con

[insert final statements here] Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ButterCatX 1 year ago
ButterCatX
@Rivera, I am not against polygamy I just wanted to debate the other side of it for the experience.
Posted by Rivera 1 year ago
Rivera
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The 14th Amendment guarantees the right of marriage to people, and that denying them marriage robs them of liberty entitled to them by law. Marriage is an ennobling institution that bestows dignity upon those who enter it.
Posted by Rivera 1 year ago
Rivera
The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The 14th Amendment guarantees the right of marriage to people, and that denying them marriage robs them of liberty entitled to them by law. Marriage is an ennobling institution that bestows dignity upon those who enter it.
Posted by ButterCatX 2 years ago
ButterCatX
Yeah, I just don't want the feme-nazi to remove his voting.
Posted by ClashnBoom 2 years ago
ClashnBoom
They were the only ones so I guess it's not needed.
Posted by ButterCatX 2 years ago
ButterCatX
le-vox, add more reasons on why my sources are more reliable so that your vote isn't removed.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Le-vox-von-zhizn 2 years ago
Le-vox-von-zhizn
RalyxButterCatXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con had the only sources and they were reliable.