The Instigator
Emmo
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
QandA
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Polygamy is an acceptable practise in the modern world

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,253 times Debate No: 42562
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Emmo

Pro

You can start of by arguing against or by merely accepting, your choice
QandA

Con

I apologize for my late response. As you have given me the choice, I will merely accept the challenge in this round. I look forward to a fun and interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Emmo

Pro

First of all i would like to thank Con for accepting my arguing and wish him/her luck in this debate

Now that all pleasantries have been set aside time to proceed with the argument at hand

Pro argues that polygamy is an acceptable practice in the modern world

Pro submits that according to Pro's research 16 countries have to date accepted the practice of same sex marriage, 18 if you count certain states in Mexico and the United States of America. Most of these countries if not all are Western states
http://www.pewforum.org...

These countries have arguably the most progressive constitutions in the world (for example the South African constitution, which also happens to have been inspired by the Canadian and USA constitution). A progressive constitution is basically recognized as a constitution advocating social reform.

Progressiveness adopts the view that freedom is a result of human making, basically we make our own freedoms, which is why such constitutions adopt a bill of rights giving people certain freedoms and acknowledging the importance of people's freedoms. The term freedom is broad enough to include a host of rights ranging from freedom of opinion to right to life

Social reform on the other hand is pretty much a similar creature; a change of mindset, (for example the abolitionism movement to end slavery was social reform). This progression tends to have a good effect on society as it factors in creates an environment necessitating true freedom of human beings. Abolitionism as already stated had a positive effect on society (acknowledging that all humans are equal regardless of colour)
http://www.history.com...

Another social reform movement beneficial to society is or rather was in the Western world the movement for women's rights. For purposes of keeping this argument simple and easier to follow i will merely cite reference with regards to benefit to society of this movement
http://www.unfpa.org...

These are but a few advantageous social reforms.

Pro's intention with regards to these arguments is to prove that social reform is good for society. Furthermore same-sex marriages are also positive to society. If we can allow a man to marry another man/woman to marry a woman, if we can mold the definition of spouse and change the definition of marriage to factor in the individual needs, desires and perceptions of people, is not hypocritical to deny a human being the right to marry two or more spouses, by what basis are we denying polygamists acceptability in our environment, when we afford the same acceptability to same sex couples. Clearly it is not from a religious perceptive

What about morally speaking one might ask

Pro submits that it is morally more honest to practice polygamy. Truth is polygamy is practiced by a lot of people, not in its true (literal sense). People cheat, and they do so a lot of the time. Would it not then be logical to accept polygamy to free humans from an unrealistic system (that people should be forced by society to have one spouse because it is presumably better for them).
68% of married women (women are supposedly less sexually driven, however pro disputes this point) according to certain study carried out would cheat if they would not get caught
http://www.statisticbrain.com...

If cheating is such a common occurrence why then is polygamy shunned since it represents the state of a lot of human relationships. Con could argue that polygamy has the risk of increasing STI infections as one would be more susceptible to such infections with increased sexual partners.
Pro counter's this potential argument by stating that people cheat, and logically one is more likely to get an STI infection from a cheating partner as opposed to an openly polygamous partner whose actions are not shunned by society. Where one is in an open polygamous relationship, the spouse/s would be more aware of the polygamous spouses multiple partners and can take measures to prevent the passing of STI's in such an instance by always insisting on the use of a condom for example. Whereas with regards to a cheating partner this knowledge is unknown to the spouse
QandA

Con

Thank you for your response. I will first give my rebuttal and then give my argument on why I don't feel polygamy is acceptable in the modern world.

Rebuttal
Pro tries to argue that social reform is good for society and of course this is true however I do not see how this is a valid argument for polygamy.
Here is a definition for social reform:
"Social reform refers to any attempt that seeks to correct any injustices in a society. People who are involved in social reforms do so with the aim of improving the quality of life."

(http://www.ask.com...)

Social reform is an invalid argument for polygamy as my opponent has failed to show mere benefits of polygamy. As my opponent has showed no connection between social reform and polygamy he might as well have said that "social reform is good for society therefore rape should be legalized".

Again my opponent argues that it is hypocritical to deny a human being the right to marry two or more spouses if we are allowed to change marriage based on desire e.g. gay marriages, however where is the line drawn? If we are to allow all marriage desires then should we allow men to marry little girls? or people to marry animals? etc. It's all well and good to say that marriage desires should be fulfilled however we must draw a line and I feel that polygamy steps over the line.

Yes of course people cheat all the time however cheating is practically unanimously shunned worldwide. It seems as if you talk about cheating as something that is accepted in the world and therefore might as well be accepted in the form of polygamy however again the main problem with this argument is the fact that cheating is greatly shunned.

My opponent's statistic that
"68% of married women according to certain study carried out would cheat if they would not get caught" holds no backbone to the argument of accepting polygamy or not. Here my opponent is basically saying that 68% of women say that they would cheat if they didn't get caught so therefore we should embrace polygamy (a form of cheating) with open arms.

My opponent states that "If cheating is such a common occurrence why then is polygamy shunned". However again, I must reiterate the point that cheating is NOT seen as acceptable. Yes cheating is a common occurrence however it is in no way commonly accepted, that is mainly why polygamy is shunned.

Now my arguments against polygamy in the modern world.
1. If a woman doesn't get along with her husband, they don't have to work it out, the man can just turn to his other wife (wives) and ignore her. She has no choice but to be submissive and helpless. This is the essence of the master and slave relationship.

2. Polygamy produces excess men. For every man who marries 4 women, three men can't find a wife. They will never have kids or buy a house or need to work hard and contribute to the economy. In countries where it is practiced, they tend to turn to gangs and rebellions.

3. Only the most wealthy man can afford it, but many others will take on too many wives and children and then expect the government to take care of them. This leads to major family crisis and money issues. For example, The FLDS polygamous Mormon sect took in millions in government money to keep going.

4. With polygamy wives have to compete for affection, time, food, and essentials for their own children. Men have little interest in being the referee. They often turn the money over to one wife and all others have to beg for items. They all want the best for their own kids at the expense of the other kids. Inequality among wives and children is inevitable.

5. Polygamy is mainly practiced in backwards countries (http://en.wikipedia.org...). No one would want to move to one of these places. It only works when women's rights are eliminated so they have no choice. Again polygamy is a very unequal, and slave and master-like practice.

Basically polygamy is a miserable life for all but the dominant husband. If we were to accept polygamy in the modern world we would be heading in a sheer backward direction.

Now here are some facts/statistics:
A new study out of the University of British Columbia documents how societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy because of the social problems it causes. (http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca...)

Polygamous households contain jealousy and conflict among co-wives and Ethnographic surveys of 69 polygamous cultures reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as harmonious. This leads to the tearing up of families.(http://www.jstor.org...)

For all these reasons I don't see how polygamy is an acceptable practice today.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Emmo

Pro

Sorry, Please skip this current round, i literally only have 4 minutes A.T.M i wrongly assumed i'd set the time limit for arguments to 3 days.
QandA

Con

I appreciate your acknowledgement and understand. Round skipped.
Debate Round No. 3
Emmo

Pro

Thank you for your cooperation

Proceeding with Pro's argument:

Con agrees that social reform is good for society "and ofcourse this is true". Con however argues that he does not how this is a valid argument for polygamy. Con proceeds to define what social reform is. Pro argues that the continual discrimination of a person's right to choose to marry more than one woman is an injustice in society.

As stated prior same sex marriage is social reform, if we can change the meaning of a spouse to mean marrying a person from one's gender, there is absolutely no reason that we should deny consenting adults the right to choose to marry more than one spouse, can we not alter the definition of spouse? For what reasons should we deny adults, their fundamental right (freedom of choice).

The United States carrying with a progressive constitution was founded on the the principles of individual liberty, personal privacy and equality. Con adopts the slippery slope argument, asking where do we draw the line, should we allow men to marry little girls? Ofcourse not, the operative word is "little" little girls are not adults, Pro argues that polygamy between consenting adults does not create a situation where people would be allowed to so drastically change the definition of marriage to include an instance where an adult male marries a little girl who by virtue of her age does have the capacity to understand the nature of marriage and more importantly does not have the capacity to consent to such marriage. The same rings true to the animals example, you cannot equate the actions of consenting adults to a marriage between a human and an animal, Do animals he capacity to consent? ofcourse not, therefore that argument is invalid

Going back to the founding principles of the United States, Pro argues why should we deny consenting adults an act which does not harm any the parties concerned. The purpose of prohibition of an act is to prevent some form of harm being committed or suffered by the parties involved. For example drugs are illegal in most states because it is presumed that these drugs have a harmful affect on the users and on children who those users are in contact with. Pro asks, what harm arises from an adult marrying more than one CONSENTING spouse

Cheating may be "shunned" however it is becoming more and more socially acceptable, an example is the evolution of the law, in South Africa it was a crime to cheat however with the progression of time this archaic law melted away from the law as it was no longer applicable in the modern world. However that is irrelevant Pro will assume for a moment that cheating is greatly shunned. Pro does not see how this helps Con's argument in anyway. Lets assume cheating is shunned, how does that in anyway relate to polygamy; Assume you are married to wife A, wife B and Wife C, if you sleep with either of these wives you have not cheated because they are essentially your wives, infact one could argue you acted more honestly by marrying women you knew you loved, had you not married one and not all three you probably would have cheated. Which means you have acted in a manner that is "shunned" by society, however by marrying all 3 you avoided this scenario, you acted honestly. Society values honesty

Proceeding to Con's arguments against polygamy

1)" If a woman doesn't get along with her husband, they don't have to work it out, the man can just turn to his other wife (wives) and ignore her. She has no choice but to be submissive and helpless. This is the essence of the master and slave relationship."

This is very presumptuous and a very shaky argument, What exactly is this based on? Furthermore If she feels she is being ignored she always has the option to seek a divorce. With a Master slave relationship there is no such remedy.

2. "Polygamy produces excess men. For every man who marries 4 women, three men can't find a wife. They will never have kids or buy a house or need to work hard and contribute to the economy. In countries where it is practiced, they tend to turn to gangs and rebellions"

Please refer us to these countries. The excess men argument is invalid because this assumes that every single woman on the planet will/intends to/wants to/can get married. Some women are career women who don't have any time to get married, some elect never to get married for whatever reason. Furthermore one does not need to get married to buy a house, have children or to work hard.

3. "Only the most wealthy man can afford it, but many others will take on too many wives and children and then expect the government to take care of them. This leads to major family crisis and money issues. For example, The FLDS polygamous Mormon sect took in millions in government money to keep going"

This again is invalid anyone can afford "it", assume Mr X works, he's not very wealthy, lower class at best (in terms of socioeconomic classes) he marries Fiona, who also works in the company Mr. X works for, they receive similar wages, Mr. X proceeds to marry Susan who works as a hairdresser at a salon, he then marries Angela who is a baby sitter, all these women work, Mr. X doesn't need to be very wealthy, on their own each of these women can probably take care of themselves. Since we no longer live in a society where men are the only breadwinners Pro fails to see the validity of Con's argument

4. "With polygamy wives have to compete for affection, time, food, and essentials for their own children. Men have little interest in being the referee. They often turn the money over to one wife and all others have to beg for items. They all want the best for their own kids at the expense of the other kids. Inequality among wives and children is inevitable."

Again this is very presumptuous, whose to say the husband will not give each wife a fair amount of time and affection (the food and essentials argument is invalid because it assumes that the husband by virtue of being male is the sole breadwinner)

5"Polygamy is mainly practiced in backwards countries (http://en.wikipedia.org......). No one would want to move to one of these places. It only works when women's rights are eliminated so they have no choice. Again polygamy is a very unequal, and slave and master-like practice."

Polygamy happens to practiced in South Africa, a country with arguably the most progressive constitution
http://www.southafrica.info...

If you took time to read the constitution of South Africa you would find that Section 9 grants equality to all regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, to name but a few. Polygamy also practiced in South Africa in respect of people's freedom to exercise their cultural and religious beliefs.
Pro fails to see how this logic adopted in South Africa and other "backward countries" is flawed in anyway

"Now here are some facts/statistics:", fair enough, here are some of Pro's facts supporting polygamy
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
QandA

Con

Thank you for your response.

Now, you say that "the continual discrimination of a person's right to choose to marry more than one woman is an injustice in society." However again I want to know where the line is drawn. If we are discussing marriage desires then under this logic is it not fair to assume that if a man of 50 wants to marry a girl of 10 then it should be allowed or else it is discriminating against marriage desires. If this was the case it would be absolutely shunned and not allowed under any circumstances. So you see when it comes to marriage desires there has to be a line drawn for whatever moral, social reasons there may be etc. Again I feel that polygamy steps over this line and have explained my reasons against it. I would also like to add that there is absolutely no right that allows a person to choose to marry more than one woman. It may be part of some cultures but there is no constitutional right on it. Therefore when we talk about polygamy we are just talking about it on account of people's desires, not entitled rights. I think this weakens the argument for polygamy immensely.

Again you must have missed my argument regarding your point that it is hypocritical to deny a human being the right to marry two or more spouses if we are allowed to change marriage based on desire e.g. gay marriages. Again I mussed reiterate the point of stepping over the line. If we are to allow all marriage desires (freedom of choice as you say) then should we allow men to marry little girls? or people to marry animals? etc. It's all well and good to say that marriage desires should be fulfilled however where do we place the boundaries?

I am only arguing the points of marrying little girls and animals because you are talking about individuality and personal choice as an argument for polygamy. You contradict yourself by first starting off arguing that polygamy should be accepted because it coincides with the right of "freedom of choice" but then switch to the argument that polygamy should be accepted because it "does not create a situation where people would be allowed to so drastically change the definition of marriage". You are either for one of the other as both arguments contradict each other. For example, you say that we of course should not allow marriage to underage girls allowed but is this not denying your whole concept on the freedom of choice? I am merely saying how I don't think this argument is a good one for polygamy as many other horrific marriage scenarios can fit under freedom of choice that people would never dream of allowing. The same goes for the argument that polygamy should be accepted because it doesn't drastically chance the definition of marriage. Many horrific marriage scenarios can also not too drastically change the definition of marriage. For example

Definition Of Marriage: The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
(http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Scenario: The marriage of a grown man between an underage girl does not really alter the definition of marriage if there is consent for example, so should this be accepted to then?

My opponent argues that "why should we deny consenting adults an act which does not harm any the parties concerned".
I have briefly gone over the harms of polygamy however I will now go into further detail.
Harms of Polygamy (why it shouldn't be accepted)

Polygamy harms Women

Jealousy and competition between women,
Real life cases:
1. "Likewise, she is forced now to compete for his affections for the rest of her life, thereby immersing in her an unnatural competition for the man who has already pledged himself to her."
Source: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

2. "His biggest headache, he said, stems from jealousy among the wives, the first of whom he married out of love. 'My rule is to behave equally toward all of my wives,' he said. 'But the first wife was very, very jealous when the second wife came. When the third arrived, the first two created an alliance against her. So I have to be a good diplomat.'"
Source: (http://www.nytimes.com...)

3. "There was tremendous competition between the wives, wasn't there? Oh, tremendous. We were all required to live in the same home, and there's just a lot of dominance that goes on about who has the right to rule. And, of course, the woman who has the most favor with her husband is going to rule over the other wives and their kids."
Source: http://content.time.com...

Polygamy harms children

Polygamous fathers can't give their children adequate attention,
Real life case:
"He also has trouble keeping track of his children. He recently saw two boys fighting in the street and told them they would bring shame on their families. 'Do you not recognize me?' one replied. 'I am your son.'"
Source: (http://www.nytimes.com...)

Polygamy harms families

Polygamous families are complicated and unstable

"Polyamory is a cover-all term for a bewildering variety of relationship forms--everything from open marriage, to bisexual triads, to a man with multiple women, to a woman with multiple men, to large sexual groups, and many more. The "rules" governing these arrangements are entirely flexible. There might be three "primary" partners who actually live together, and several additional "secondary" partners (collectively shared or not) to whom the three "primaries" are less committed. The levels of commitment, and the range of partnership and mutual involvement, are subject to continual change and renegotiation. Open and honest communication is the only rule. Polyamorists emphasize that multi partner unions take intense and constant work. Yet this need for a higher level of monitoring and negotiation only highlights the forces pushing against stability."
Source: Stanley Kurtz. "Polygamy Versus Democracy. You can't have both." The Weekly Standard. June 5th, 2006

Polygamy harms men

Leaves some men with no women to marry:

"Other things being equal (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry."
Source: (http://reason.com...)

These are some of the harms of Polygamy and therefore why I feel it should not be accepted in the modern world.

Now, I was talking about cheating being shunned because you used the fact that cheating goes on all the time as a reason to allow polygamy.I countered this by questioning how that is a good argument for polygamy ( a form of cheating) when cheating is already greatly shunned.

Now my round 3 arguments. I have just reiterated and furthered most of these points however I will go through them just incase I missed out on some.

1. " If a woman doesn't get along with her husband, they don't have to work it out, the man can just turn to his other wife (wives) and ignore her. She has no choice but to be submissive and helpless. This is the essence of the master and slave relationship."

I have gone into further detail on this point in this round.

2. "Polygamy produces excess men. For every man who marries 4 women, three men can't find a wife. They will never have kids or buy a house or need to work hard and contribute to the economy. In countries where it is practiced, they tend to turn to gangs and rebellions"

I have gone into further detail on this point in this round.

3. "Only the most wealthy man can afford it, but many others will take on too many wives and children and then expect the government to take care of them. This leads to major family crisis and money issues. For example, The FLDS polygamous Mormon sect took in millions in government money to keep going".

This argument is not invalid. As I said, Polygamy is MAINLY practiced in backwards countries where men are seen as the only breadwinners in society, (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

4. "With polygamy wives have to compete for affection, time, food, and essentials for their own children. Men have little interest in being the referee. They often turn the money over to one wife and all others have to beg for items. They all want the best for their own kids at the expense of the other kids. Inequality among wives and children is inevitable."

Again this is totally valid as the same reason for number 3.

5. "Polygamy is mainly practiced in backwards countries (http://en.wikipedia.org.........). No one would want to move to one of these places. It only works when women's rights are eliminated so they have no choice. Again polygamy is a very unequal, and slave and master-like practice."

Key word here is "Mainly" practised. You say that you fail to see how this logic adopted in "backward countries" is flawed in anyway however I don't see how it isn't flawed on the account of such little women's rights in these countries.

For all these reasons I don't see how polygamy can be an acceptable practise in the modern world. It adopts barbaric policies and outdated rules that we are way ahead of in this day and age and causes harm to every party involved, as I have shown. I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 4
Emmo

Pro

First of a girl aged 10 is a minor, according to the law a minor does not have the requisite capacity to consent to such an act. You cannot compare a marriage between adults who have the life experience and maturity to understand the nature and consequences of a minor. With all due respect Con's example cannot be considered as you cannot equate polygamy to child abuse. A minor and an animal are entities who do not have the capacity to consent to marriage by virtue of their inability to understand the nature of marriage. As pro argued (and as Con has misinterpreted) acceptance of polygamy "does not create a situation where people would be allowed to so drastically change the definition of marriage" to the extent that innocent minor and animals could be essentially forced into marriage (as already stated they do not have the capacity to consent to such an act)

Furthermore as i already stated the constitution of the U.S.A and most civilized constitution recognize a person's freedom of choice (as long as it is reasonable and cause no harm to another person). Prohibiting consenting ADULTS the right to choose to marry more than one man/woman is a direct contradiction of people's freedom of choice. We cannot allow marriage to underage girls, because they are NOT adults, they are underage, and it is the purpose of society and the law to protect those who cannot defend themselves, those vulnerable entities of society (for example minors). Therefore Con's counter argument is entirely invalid

Scenario: "The marriage of a grown man between an underage girl does not really alter the definition of marriage if there is consent for example, so should this be accepted to then?"
The operative word in the definition cited by Con is contractual relationships. Which means the laws regulating contracts apply. Minors generally do not have the capacity to enter contracts
http://www.nolo.com...

Therefore Con's scenario is invalid from the onset

Pro respectfully seeks to ignore the real life cases cited by Con, because Pro could easily google real life benefits of polygamy and find a few examples, which would at the end of it all prove absolutely nothing aside from the fact that people have different opinions. These examples Con cites are entirely subjective

"Leaves some men with no women to marry".
There are roughly 7 billion people in the world, as Pro already argued not everyone gets married, furthermore even fewer are polygamous, therefore Con's argument about men running out of women to marry cannot be taken seriously as it is invalid in its entirety.

"I was talking about cheating being shunned because you used the fact that cheating goes on all the time as a reason to allow polygamy countered this by questioning how that is a good argument for polygamy"

Pro will reiterate his argument in simple terms. Cheating is shunned, it is dishonest
Polygamy is not cheating, allows men/women to marry the spouses they desire to marry, therefore limiting the need for cheating
In theory polygamy should help decrease cases of cheating (whether or not this is the case in practice is irrelevant, as Pro stated in THEORY)
therefore according to this theory polygamy is good as it decreases the need to cheat

"This argument is not invalid. As I said, Polygamy is MAINLY practiced in backwards countries where men are seen as the only breadwinners in society"

Polygamy is practiced in these "backward" countries (as so eloquently put) on the basis of culture and religion The simple fact that these countries elect to manifest their cultural and religious beliefs (which are justifiable and reasonable) in their law does not make their legal systems "backward"

For example Nigeria permits polygamy as it part of their cultural beliefs and religious beliefs ( "If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one" (Quran 4:3).), passed from generation to generation
http://www.namywedding.com...

In the Maldives polygamy is permitted upon consent of the first wife, which makes it even more acceptable because the first wife has a say in the matter, Pro fails to see how this law is backward considering the wife would have consented to the polygamous marriage to begin with. The same rule rings true in Iran, Malaysia and Singapore
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In another "backward" (sarcastically) country, Netherlands the idea of polygamy has been accepted. it is possible to have a civil union between 3 people. Please note that this is the first country that recognized same-sex marriages, another step in social reform
http://www.brusselsjournal.com...
QandA

Con

I am not equating polygamy to child abuse. I am again just posing the question of where do we draw the line with accepting marriage desires? You made a case that polygamy should be accepted because we accept marriage desires under gay marriage for example but there must be a line drawn, that is all I am saying when using the example of marriage to underage girls or animals.

You say that "the constitution recognize a person's freedom of choice (as long as it is reasonable and cause no harm to another person)" and then say that not accepting polygamy is a contradiction of freedom of choice. however polygamy is a completely subjective thing when it comes to being "reasonable" or not so this is not a valid argument. Just because you think that polygamy is reasonable doesn't mean that it is in fact a contradiction of freedom of choice and should be accepted. Like I said it is subjective and completely depends on the person.

I am disappointed with my opponents choice to ignore my points on the harm of polygamy. He claims that he could easily Google real life benefits of polygamy and find a few examples, yet he does no such thing, giving absolutely no kind of rebuttal or counter-argument against my points. Therefore my points still stand as there very may well be cases of benefits of polygamy but as my opponent has not presented such cases, for the purpose of this debate, they may as well be non-existent.

"Leaves some men with no women to marry".
I am not sure what you find so difficult about this point? Speaking In terms of the polygamous community, some men will have no women to marry as there will be a high demand.

My opponent claims that polygamy is not cheating however he says differently earlier on in the debate:
"Truth is polygamy is practiced by a lot of people, not in its true (literal sense). People cheat, and they do so a lot of the time."
You use this as an argument to accept polygamy; the fact that it is practiced in the form of cheating. I feel this is a weak argument for polygamy. It is like saying, people murder all the time therefore murdering should be accepted. There is no backbone to the argument. Likewise you say "polygamy is good as it decreases the need to cheat" however,
1. If this is true then I think that is a very insignificant pro of polygamy compared to the sheer cons I have described.
2. You make this claim without providing any evidence, source, reference etc.

I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of a "backward" country. It is not to do with their legal systems, it is essentially just a developing country of the world. And the truth is Polygamy is mainly practiced in developing countries where women have sub-standard rights and men are the dominant figure. However as I have shown, polygamy in developed countries harms every party involved just as much as it would in developing countries, therefore why should it be accepted?

To respond to your examples, Nigeria is indeed a developing country. Your very own source says that "Polygamy is traditional" as well as religious. Nigeria like most developing countries has traditions where the man is dominant to the woman and where the woman has little say. (http://iheu.org...). Why would we adopt such a practice in the modern society when we are far ahead of these cultural rules. In other words, why should we adopt practices from the developing world? That would be going backwards instead of forwards. Not to mention the cons of such a practice.

Again I am not calling the law "backward" per say, just that the country is a developing one, with developing practices.

I must call you up on your Netherlands example. Polygamy involves marriage, not a "civil union", therefore polygamy has not been accepted, just a civil union between 3 people has been accepted. However what does this prove? I don't see how this is an argument for the notion that polygamy should be an acceptable practice in the modern world. Pointing out countries involved with polygamy is not an argument for polygamy.

With that I end my round.
It has been a pleasure debating with you and I wish you the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Fatso 3 years ago
Fatso
No it's not. Polyandry is a subset of polygamy/polyamory. You're thinking of polygyny.
Posted by Emmo 3 years ago
Emmo
Not necessarily ignoring it, polygamy is more prevalent, plus its the basically the same idea, just a reversal in terms of gender
Posted by Fatso 3 years ago
Fatso
I'm confused as to why both sides seem to be completely ignoring the existence of polyandry.
Posted by Fatso 3 years ago
Fatso
Con's arguments relate only to polygyny; some of the problems stated would be solved by polyandry, and others rely on the "normal" perception of a polygamic relationship (id este, one man in a number of parallel relationships with a number of women), ignoring other forms of polygamy.
Posted by Fatso 3 years ago
Fatso
Pro's argument relates much better to polyamory than to polygamy.
No votes have been placed for this debate.