The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Polygamy should be legal in the United States

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 6 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,878 times Debate No: 37548
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

Polygamy should be legal in the United States.

Definitions-Polygamy is a legally entered into marriage between more than 2 people. For the purposes of this debate "civil unions" not referred to as marriage but containing the exact same benefits will count as a marriage, marriage in this debate related to the legal benefits that it entails rather than any other meaning of marriage.

Argument 1

From a standpoint of the law emotional and cultural ideas about what "marriage" is supposed to mean are irrelevant and if so important then we should just rename all "marriage" "civil union" and let religion culture emotion and spirituality have the word "marriage". Many people felt that and still feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. But the issue isn't what marriage is supposed to be the issue from a standpoint of the law is what the law provides for people who are married and whether or not the people involved deserve such benefits.

These benefits include childcare tax credits, inheritance rights, immigration, the right to visit people in the hospital, joint tax filing, and spousal immunity to having to testify against their spouse.

Polygamy obviously raises some issues with this. Can they claim endless childcare tax credits and how fair is it

Nevertheless all these issues can be worked out. Childcare tax credits can be reduced for those who have more employable adults in the marriage. Limits on the number of people who can immigrate through marriage can be enacted. Hospitals can set reasonable occupancy limits on the number of spouses permitted in the room at a single time. Spousal immunity to having to testify could also be limited to a certain number.

To prove that this shouldn't be legal my opponent must show why these benefits should be unavailable to people who choose to live a polygamous lifestyle.

Argument 2-Protecting Spouses
One aspect of marriage benefits is that if there is domestic violence it is easier to get the involvement of court and police services. Should we abandon polygamous families on this one? How much would the status of Mormon polygamist wives improve if they had the rights of marriage? Furthermore, Mormon polygamist wives not being able to legally get married are often stuck having to live with the man's brother when he dies. If legal marriage was available many states have laws requiring inheritance to go to spouses and they would be able to have their own money and live independently.
Mikal

Con

I will offer my contentions in this round with some brief rebuttals since it ties into the points I am making. I will offer direct rebuttals in later rounds


Contention 1

Cultural Dependency.

"From a standpoint of the law emotional and cultural ideas about what "marriage" is supposed to mean are irrelevant and if so important then we should just rename all "marriage" "civil union" and let religion culture emotion and spirituality have the word "marriage."

I disagree with this entirely. My adversary is claiming that cultural ideology about what marriage is should not be taken into account.

Culture is a drastic part in the legalization of anything. In some cultures murder is considered legal, possibly with rape and pedophilia. Why are these things illegal in the USA? Because the question of what is being legalized is dependent on the culture in which the question is being presented. More often that not if it would bring more harm than good to that culture, it is not legalized. That is one way to look at the ontological foundation for morality and the legalization of things within a culture itself.

So the question that should be asked is, "does polygamy bring more harm than good?" I will address this in my following contentions and show the flaws within legalizing this, and why we should not bend laws for polygamist.



Contention 2

Taxation


View the form below, this is a tax refund form. Note the areas I circled.










The issue with this is that a polygamist is entitled to have multiple wives or dependents, all of which must be accounted for in taxation. If you grant a polygamist the right to have one extra wife, what stops him from having 300 or 500 wives. He could very well marry any number of women he pleases. A middle income family who yields a income of around 25,000 - 50,000 dollars could receive a refund up to around 4,500 if they were just to claim one wife and one child. If that family were to claim 4 children, it could go to around 7,500 - 10,000. So how then do we gauge a person whom could have 300 wives and 700 children? Here are three examples of how this would fail horribly and could not be worked around.

Dependents - a person who relies on another, esp. a family member, for financial support.



Claiming dependents and wives on one form : If a family with 4 children could yield up to a 10,000 dollar refund, think about someone whom had 700 children. It would almost guarantee them a full refund, and with that, there would be no need to pay taxes at all because of the number of people he is claiming. This would be exploited and used to no end, because the only thing he would have to prove is that he helped support them or provided (x) amount of his income. The current system now requires you to support someone over half a year to claim them. There are so many ways this would be abused.



Claiming on a house hold to house hold basis : If you were to file a separate form for each individual family. Your income would have to be calculated by how much you put into each family directly, how much your wife made in that family, if she worked, and the total amount of your money that was put into each individual family. It would be virtually impossible to determine dependents in regards to children, because you could simply say they lived with you and move them from family to family to receive maximum benefits.


Wifes with multiple husbands claiming them as dependents :One more example would be, what happens if a wife has 30 husbands. Could each individual husband claim her? Seeing as how traditional marriage only allows a wife to be claimed by her husband if she is working, think about this in regards to her having 30 husbands whom all support her.




There are way to many loopholes to even try justify legalizing this. The repercussions of this would echo through the economy, and be exploited by people whom would seek polygamy out as a source for financial gain. We already give out enough free money to people, we do not need another reason.




Contention 3

Employer paid healthcare

Think about how this works. More often than not there are multiple ways in which an employee can select this. He can chose to put each family member on a plan for (x) amount of money that is removed out of his paycheck. There is usually a cap sometimes at a wife + 4.




Here is an example of that










Now take a look at the cost with some of the new laws in place that are forcing employers to pay healthcare.










Now assume this. Since this is normally capped with one family, and the employer has to pay in (x) amount of money depending on the number of people in the family. Also this would raise the cost that comes out of the employees check, because the more you are claiming, the more you pay. What happens when you go to apply for this and have to put you have 20 legally recognized wives.

He could chose to cover some and not the other? This would also lead to exploitation because we are only considering this from a one person perspective. What happens if a woman whom does not work, has 30 husbands whom does. Each husband could individually opt, to claim her under a specific plan, or even have her claim dental on one, and eye on another. Whatever would be the most beneficial to that person.




Contention 4

Upholding the values of marriage.

Marriage in itself is defined as an act of commitment between two people. It is a promise to love and cherish the other, as long as they leave. To death to us part, as most vows put it. Marriage was built on the foundation that it is between two people whom love each other, and are seeking to enter a live long commitment.

Marriage - the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

Marriage - the formal union of two people, typically acknowledged by law.

There is controversy about whether it is between a man and woman, or simply between two people. The thing both sides mostly agree upon is that marriage is an act of commitment.

While Pro claims that it is a legal contract which is the case, it is a contract that also comes with promises between the wife and husband, or between the two whom are getting married. The very foundation of marriage is a life of commitment to that person.

So pro would rather have all marriage be classified as civil unions, and marriage itself to be reformed as only a religious commitment. I disagree entirely. Marriage has always been defined as a commitment between two people. If anything he should argue that civil unions should have the same benefits as marriage, and that if a polygamist wanted more than one wife, after the first wife , the others would be classified as civil unions.

Even that is not viable and I have shown a few reasons in my previous contentions.



Contention 5

The effects on a younger generation.

What kind of moral principals do you think polygamy would instill in children? They would have 20 dads and 20 moms. They would have to pick whom they liked the most, and at a certain age, could even decide to stay with another family if they saw fit. The can chose which parent to live with at a certain age. There are just tons of ways this would not legally work out as well.

Also it instills in them a sense of "cheating". They would not know what the word commitment entails because they would never be around it. They would see Daddy cheating on mommy, or being with 20 other women. They would grow up with the mindset that cheating is acceptable. It would instill in them values that would make them not be able to function socially.

Commitment goes far beyond marriage. Commitment and dedication to jobs would also be affected by that. If you take out the need of dedication around a child, and let him see that. He will not feel the need to dedicate himself to anything. That is basic psychology. If a child sees something, he will mimic it. He also tends to adopt the habits of his parents.



Rebuttal

Protecting spouses

This is the only one I feel the need to address, since I feel I adequately responded to his first argument.

"One aspect of marriage benefits is that if there is domestic violence it is easier to get the involvement of court and police services."


I think this point is erroneous. Whether or not a police officer or the law does not agree with someone having a mistress. They are still required by law to protect them and uphold their rights. If domestic abuse is happening, all that is needed is for someone to contact authorities and it will be handled the same way any other domestic abuse is handled. That is a requirement of them by the law.


In Closing

The question is not whether it is morally acceptable to have more than one wife, it is will it harm this society. I have just gave a few out of many reasons as to why it is a bad idea. There is no solid reason to support this stance, and I have shown how it will harm us more than it will help.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

Contention 1

Con asks the question Why are these things (murder rape and child molestation) illegal in the USA? And answers it himself saying it is dependent on culture.

But it is not justified by culture even if it is a product of culture. To justify policies based solely on "it's our culture" leads to self-referential reasoning in creating policies. Murder, rape, and child molestation can be justified on the basis of violating the rights of non-consenting or unable to consent others.

Polygamy does not harm any nonconsenting others when it takes place between consenting adults.

Contention 2

Con points out how certain benefits could get out of control. That is why I said we could adjust marriage policies to limit the number of spouses you can allow to "join" in on certain benefits. In addition we could adjust it so that the more adults in a spouseship the less refund you can get even leading to a penalty at some point which we could apply even for mere cohabitants raising children together. And at some point of having lots of children there could be a cutoff to increased benefits.

Furthermore the example con brings up of someone having 700 children is ridiculous. This would raise red flags and an investigation to see how a person could possibly be raising this many children. Perhaps this would be doable with many, many spouses but in that case my suggestion that with more spouses we decrease the financial benefits would solve that problem.

Contention 3: Fractionizing Claims

The wife with 30 husbands could require the "claiming" of the spouse to be split into fractions, each only benefiting 1/30th. As with health insurance we can always change the policies in health insurance about how you are allowed to claim people or not. In my opinion we should abolish employer-based insurance altogether and only allow public and non-profit insurance which is in turn limited to covering affordability as well as occassional doctor's visits and perhaps contraception depending on what our long-term population growth needs are. If that proposal were passed the concern with health insurance would be moot.

Contention 4: Even more Options

The point of this and the above contentions is that there are things we can do to get rid of the problems that would be related to legal polygamy while still legalizing it. If we can treat people equally and fairly and have no problems by just adjusting some policies while not disrupting anyone else's lives in making these adjustments (since the limitations would kick in only in having multiple spouses the adjustments wouldn't hurt monogamous couples). We could even eliminate certain financial benefits altogether if we wanted to. This would have to be determined in a nationwide public debate. It is a good question why people deserve special financial breaks just from calling themselves spouses while friends living together on a permanent, stable basis even taking care of children together don't get the same benefits.

Contention 5: "Love" and "Committment" mean different things to different people

Con says

Marriage in itself is defined as an act of commitment between two people. It is a promise to love and cherish the other, as long as they leave. To death to us part, as most vows put it. Marriage was built on the foundation that it is between two people whom love each other, and are seeking to enter a live long commitment.

Sappy and sentimental but in the end it is just one person's opinion. Society benefits more by people accepting alternative lifestyles and alternative ways of being and defining one's life and one's relationships as long as they are not harming other people or causing harm inside the relationship. What if two people's idea of marriage is one where they love each other, they live together, they share the most intimate moments, but the don't consider their "committment" to bar them from sexuality and even romance with others in addition to that and are open to living with yet more adults if they come to mutually feel comfortable with such an arrangement? What good are we doing for ourselves or for these people to tell them they are "wrong" if that is what makes them happy? Nothing, we're just putting up walls between ourselves fighting over what otherwise would've been a non-issue. Their relationship and the way they see it and what it means to them is just as valid as a traditional monogamous relationship. Legalizing polygamy accepts these people and their relationships as valid, welcoming them into the community and letting young people know they have their options open instead of pressuring people to conform to certain social relationships even if they know they will be happier in other arrangements.


Not Sure what Con is driving at here

"So pro would rather have all marriage be classified as civil unions, and marriage itself to be reformed as only a religious commitment. I disagree entirely. Marriage has always been defined as a commitment between two people."

But defining the legal contract as just "civil union" would not change marriage being a "commitment between two people" at least not if that then continues on being the way people use the term. It would just divorce marriage from the legal benefits which would then be attached to civil unions.

Cheating is only cheating because of the mutual understandings people reach in a relationship

Con says this would teach young people cheating is OK. But it wouldn't. Parents talk to their children about relationships all the time. If two people talk and agree they are to have no sexual or romantic attachments with other people and one of them breaks that agreement then that is cheating. But if they talk and say it's OK then it's not. They could also say that it's OK only with certain people or under certain circumstances. It's an agreement between consenting adults. The requirements of it are for the adults to decide not set in stone.

Con also claims they wouldn't be able to function socially? How so? I would argue they would function better as they would be more aware of their wide range of options and so not feel any compulsion to go against what sort of relationship would truly make them happy.

Different "Commitments"

In response to "Commitment goes far beyond marriage..."

Romantic/sexual 'commitment' (as used by "con) is not the same as occupational commitment. Commitment the way con is using it is being used to mean only being sexually/romantically involved with that one other person in con's opinion regardless of what the two people involved have in mind for what they want in their relationship.

"Commitment" in the sense used for a job would be much more analogous to being willing to lend a helping hand as part of a family and being responsible for what ever duties one takes on or any mistakes one makes.

Protecting spouses

My point about protecting spouses in passing on inheritance to them still stands.

Hospital Visitation

One thing con ignores is hospital visitation rights. Why shouldn't that be honored? As I said it would be reasonable for the hospital to limit the number of spouses in a room at a type and for how long but why exclude spouses from hospital visitation?
Mikal

Con

Rebuttal 1

"But it is not justified by culture even if it is a product of culture. To justify policies based solely on "it's our culture" leads to self-referential reasoning in creating policies. Murder, rape, and child molestation can be justified on the basis of violating the rights of non-consenting or unable to consent others."

This statement is false when you look at it from a proper perspective. Culture does dictate and determine what is legal and not legal within a society. As society progresses and determines what is more harmful, or less harmful to them they place laws in place to prevent these issues. A better way to say it this, as people become more rational laws and regulations change. While murder and rape may be legal in less civilized societies, with our nature and how most of the modern world accepts that murder is wrong. It would never be accepted as a traditional value in a more modern culture.

Using murder as an argument for this is a fallacy. Murder is inherently wrong and causes harm to other people, we are able to recognize this fact and why it would be illegal in almost all circumstances in any rational society. The society in question falls under this category.


Rebuttal 2

"Con points out how certain benefits could get out of control. That is why I said we could adjust marriage policies to limit the number of spouses you can allow to "join" in on certain benefits"

"Furthermore the example con brings up of someone having 700 children is ridiculous. This would raise red flags and an investigation to see how a person could possibly be raising this many children"



The first statement he makes is erroneous. He missed the initial premise of the argument. It does not have to do with how many people on person can claim, but how many people can claim one person. It is just not the husband whom is allotted to have multiple wives, but the wife whom is allowed to have multiple husbands. So if you look at it from the perspective that a wife could have 30 husbands, and each one of those could claim her. It would lead to severe issues. As state and federal laws allows, a spouse determines taxation. So when you have 30 different people claiming her, and saying that it is "their" wife. This is a problematic issue.

As far as the 700 children claim, that was a metaphor. I was hoping anyone with rational thoughts would be aware of this. It is not the point of how many children, but the fact that they could theoretically have an unlimited number of children. If you permit someone the ability to marry more than once, you are saying that number is not limited to (x) marriages. So you very well could have multiple people claiming the same children or someone having 100 children.

Cons claim that this would not be supported is absurd. Me doing income taxes, I often have to turn people down because of them trying to abuse this system. I am not obligated by law to turn them down, but to save myself trouble I do so. You can claim kids whom are not your own already, think about the loopholes this would bring.


Rebuttal 3


"The wife with 30 husbands could require the "claiming" of the spouse to be split into fractions, each only benefiting 1/30th. As with health insurance we can always change the policies in health insurance about how you are allowed to claim people or not"

Again this it not possible. You can not split houses by fractions. The way income is determined is relevant to how much a specific house makes you. It would be impossible to divide this among 30 different houses. You would then have to judge how much each house spent on food, gas, school clothes or individual things that go into the equation of the return. In a typical family setting, it is wife + husbands income and then you get additional credits back for additional allotments. It would also just not be relevant to the person in question. So if we are talking about Wife 1, you would then have to factor in (Wife 1 + Husband 1- Husband 30) subtracted from each husband (Husband 1-30 + (x) many wives they have). Then also after that factor in the wives of husband 1-30 and how many familes they have. This is an unacceptable situation in which people would seek out to exploit. Just to do one person returns, you would have to calculate the income for each family she has, and then every family that each of her husbands has and so forth and so on, to actually get a percentage to divide among each household. Needless to say that is impossible with tall the loopholes that would come from it.


Rebuttal 4

"The point of this and the above contentions is that there are things we can do to get rid of the problems that would be related to legal polygamy while still legalizing it. If we can treat people equally and fairly and have no problems by just adjusting some policies while not disrupting anyone else's lives"

I hate to say, ones individual freedom can not infringe on and or harm others or the society in question. I am sure some people want pedophilia or incest to be common, but since it causes more harm than good to people in the society we chose and have the right not to legalize it. It is not your right to do anything you wish.

I have shown how this could be exploited by people in multiple situations, and also the fact that you can not fix it. Just saying we can fix it and actually being able to put a system in place to make it work are two different things. If saying we could fix something would actually make it work, the key stone pipline would already be legal, global warming would not be an issue , and our economy would not be going down the drain. There are factors in everything that can limit or prevent it from happening.


Rebuttal 5


Commitment

I do not feed the need to refute this much because he is applying different definitions to what commitment can mean. All the time ignoring the foundation on which marriage was started. Sure commitment can be applied by different definitions, but in this situation it is directly relevant to the topic at hand. Just because there are different definitions for what commitment is, does not mean that we can change the foundation of something like marriage itself. Anything can bear different meanings but you have to place them into what type of situation you are talking about.

Take your job example

(A) commitment to a job means you are dedicated to that job, it does not mean you have to stay there forever

If I took the definition of marriage. Which is wanting to be with someone forever in most circumstances and put that definition in the job situation. You would be stuck at that job forever if you chose to commit to it. Just because you change the definition of something, you have to look at the underlying foundation and principle of the circumstance in question and how the definition applies. In the context of marriage, you are saying you want to be with one person regardless of death, sickness, and hard times. Which is why if you cheat on someone it breaks that promise of commitment. Allowing someone to break that promise freely is breaking the foundation on which marriage was founded.



Rebuttal 6

I already spoke on the issue of domestic violence/protecting the spouse from domestic violence and I do not want to waste my last few allowed words repeating myself when you offered no rebuttal for this.

As far as hospital rights, that is a statement you made not a contention. You are saying hospitals could do (x) where families would have visitation rights as if you were responding to me. I never made this claim or am aware of its relevance to the debate.

You say this

" Hospitals can set reasonable occupancy limits on the number of spouses permitted in the room at a single time"


(Example) : For this to be relevant it would have to work something like this


I would say in a contention : Polygamy would be an issue because visiting families in hospitals would be over crowded.

Then you would respond with : (X) or your initial claim that "Hospitals can set reasonable occupancy limits on the number of spouses permitted in the room at a single time"

The issue with this is that you just randomly say hospitals could limit this as if you are responding to something. It was not a contention, but was offered as a rebuttal in your first round so I am quite lost as to how to actually respond.

Even if you had meant that hospitals limit polygamist families from entering the room and wanted me to respond, there would be no need because you already offered a rebuttal to your own question.

In Closing

My adversary has still gave no reason as to why polygamy should be legal. He offered assertions based on a personal perspective. I have shown how this practice would harm our society more than help it, and therefore remain illegal.
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

Self-referential

Con states "culture does dictate and determine what is legal and not legal within a society."

Yes, by definition. But this is self-referential i.e. circular to use this as a reason for a policy. By saying "we should do X because it's our culture" we prevent change from ever happening. You are basically saying "this is how we should do things because it is already the way we do things" and giving your stance no other reasoning. A good culture will determine these things based on substantial reasons not based solely on "this is because of what we think".

A culture could practice human sacrifice or prohibit life-saving and hold on to it by just saying over and over again "well it's our culture".

We are a part of our culture, the voters and politicians are. Hence we can change our culture and only through reason can we determine whether we should or not. Just pointing out "culture says..." is not a reason. It is a statement of what is but not a statement of what ought.

If the policy is written well there will be no loopholes

Con reiterates the whole concerns about taking advantage of the tax system. But a hard and fast limit on "no increased benefits in this area of the contract passed X number of people" could be implemented and would solve the problem.

It is possible if we make it law

Con says it is not possible to split houses by fractions. But it is possible.

No Harm from polygamy

The difference between polygamy and pedophilia is the harm done to non-consenting adults. With incest there is the concern that the child could wind up with genetic defects.

Yes there is a difference

Con says there is a difference between saying we can fix it and actually being able to put a system in place to make it work. Yes, this is true. The debate is over "Polygamy should be legal in the United States" NOT "Polygamy should be legal in the United States under any and all plans put forth to make it reality".

People can make what ever agreements they want within reason

There is no reason to reject an agreement as valid between two (or more) consenting adults to live together forever and to accept sex outside of that or to regard sex under such circumstances to be a form of "violating commitment" since "commitment" is something defined by the parties involved and if they define it in a way where they are allowed to have sex with other partners they aren't hurt by it and if they are that's their own fault for making the agreement.

On the Job

Con states If I took the definition of marriage. Which is wanting to be with someone forever in most circumstances and put that definition in the job situation. You would be stuck at that job forever if you chose to commit to it. Just because you change the definition of something, you have to look at the underlying foundation and principle of the circumstance in question and how the definition applies.

And tries to use it against me. Yet it was Con who said this would set a bad example for children that if we made 'commitment' in marriage less valueable then kids wouldn't care about commitment to a job. But then con says "just because you change the definition of something..." and yet con is the one who played with the definitions by equating "commitment" in the context of marriage with a job when most people in jobs are just trying to do as well as possible to make money and get ahead and so you're committed to doing well while you do your job but when a promotion is available or a better position opens up elsewhere you'd be foolish not to take advantage of it. That makes "commitment" when it comes to a job different from the commitment when it comes to marriage, which makes Con's attempt to frame polygamy as convincing children to have no commitment in their jobs false.

Hospitals

My point about the hospitals is simply that by prohibiting polygamy that also stops hospital visitation rights. Even if financial rights should be limited (and can be by simply writing such regulations into law) people should still get to see their loved ones in the hospital. My points about how hospitals could then be allowed to have reasonable regulations about how many people can be in there at a time is just acknowledging that otherwise there may be an issue with this. But since it's easy to fix it doesn't stop us from saying "Polygamy should be legal in the United States"

VOTE PRO!
Mikal

Con

Rebuttal 1

Society

I have explained this multiple times and will not stay on this very long. I have explained how and why a society plays a role within the legalization of things. If a society who is less cultured, wanted to implement issues that we do not agree with, we can not claim they are "wrong". The issue is these societies are not as rational and as advanced as we have become.

We have the ability to reason, rationalize, and consider what is harmful and what is not harmful. It is not a majority rules situation = what is right but hinged on the fact that we can rationally gauge what is harmful. Trying to rationalize how murder or rape would be acceptable in the US is illogical, because we are already aware that it is wrong and have implemented practices to punish those who commit these acts. The only way it could or would be rational, is the people in the nation were not exposed to the level of rationally which we already possess, or the rationality which we now possess were to be eliminated all together.

Rebuttal 2

Taxation

My adversary claims that loopholes can be fixed and does not address my contention at all. I have explained the issues surrounding it, and simply claiming they can be fixed is not a sufficient cause. When you are seeking to eliminate a practice that is objectively accepted , you must offer up a solution as to how and why it is logical to change it. Basically he has to present a solution to the issue at how, and demonstrate how this could work better than the current system. If not show how it could work better, he must at least provide a way that it could replace the current system. He has failed to do so. He simply states

"Con says it is not possible to split houses by fractions. But it is possible."

Again he has offered no solution as to how this could happen, he just says it can be done. I have shown the issues with trying to divide returns among multiple families. It is almost impossible because it takes into consideration to many variables. See my contention in the last round as to why.


Rebuttal 3

"Con says there is a difference between saying we can fix it and actually being able to put a system in place to make it work. Yes, this is true. The debate is over "Polygamy should be legal in the United States" NOT "Polygamy should be legal in the United States under any and all plans put forth to make it reality".

This is a horrible argument from the start. When you are claiming something should be legal, you have to seek to change the norm and bring forth standards and arguments as to how and why it should be implemented. Again saying it should be legal just because you believe it should be legal while ignoring all the legal and social ramifications is not valid.

Rebuttal 4

"People can make what ever agreements they want within reason"

"and yet con is the one who played with the definitions by equating "commitment"

This was a statement and ignored everything I stated about the foundations on which marriage was implemented and how it is currently viewed. See previous rounds.

He poorly tries to show how someone can change the word commitment to define what they want. I did claim that marriage in commitment and is perceived based on the foundation, and commitment in a job would be perceived differently. This again does not give someone the right to perceive commitment differently when the foundations in which in which something was founded under has been and continues to be an objective fact. That definition is directly relevant to that situation and must consider the history and everything around it. Just as how we perceive commitment with a job using the same methods. If someone wants to change the word commitment to what they will, it is their right. Taking that however and applying it to what something was objectively founded on, and trying to reinterpret it is not correct however. With that logic we could interpret the constitution in any way we wished. We could define rights and freedom by multiple meanings. This play at semantics failed horribly.


Rebuttal 5

Visitation Rights

Okay he clearly stated what he wanted answered this time and again lost me a little bit. There is a set number of people whom can be in a room at a time regardless of whether they are family or not. Having a few family members who have passed recently, I am aware of this. They will never allow a certain amount of people back into a room during critical situations even if they are family members. This is true in cases where they are in ICU. As far as regular visitation rights, anyone can generally go to see someone. Even in normal situations that would just be strictly related to room capacity and not whether someone is a member of the family or not. I have no idea how polygamy would effect or play a part in this at all, because the same rules would still apply even if someone were a polygamist and brought an entire family in.

In Closing

I have shown multiple reasons as to why polygamy should not be allowed in the context of marriage. If someone wants to have a mistress, that is their right. I however have provided logical and rational reasons as to why we should not legally marry more than one person.

Con responds with remarks like "It can work" or "we can find a way to fix it", but offers up no reason as to why we should change or how we could change the norm. Thus his resolution was not met.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
I'm upset at the false "definition" of marriage. It is a joint commitment involving united persons- usually is two people. I can't believe people take their religious views and institute them for a word that covers thousands of religions, cultures. I still support polygamy, but I acknowledged cons arguments and decided it would need to be restricted in some ways.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
By the topic alone I thought I was pro, but then I read the first argument. On the premises MasturDbtor established this isn't really about any particular relationship being legal. It is about the extension of privileges which I don't think should be granted in any based on a relationship because they are in fact rights which should be granted universally.

In the first pro argument the benefits stated are "These benefits include childcare tax credits, inheritance rights, immigration, the right to visit people in the hospital, joint tax filing, and spousal immunity to having to testify against their spouse."

I believe any individual should have the right to refuse any taxes they want, specify any inheritance pattern they wish, immigrate to where they want, allow anyone to visit them within the hospital (per hospital rules), and refuse to testify for any reason. Furthermore they should be able to promise a certain exercise of these rights through contract. They must not be locked into only one kind of contract and there is no need for any special government law since contract law should be sufficient.

For that reason I now understand the pro position to be "it's not fair that only some get their rights, let"s extend these rights to a few more". That is the same argument homosexuals" use. I cannot agree, it is analogous to trying to fix slavery by freeing one slave at a time because they got married. It lends credence to slavery by saying there should be exceptions.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
well this thing is part of freedom of will.
tiger live with one tigress and lion many.
same is for humans some wana only one.
some many.
same is women. some can bear it some cant.
so every thing must be with consent.
simple, nice, easy and clean.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
mine are 4 than there is big restriction.
and getting two is big pro for me right now.
girls agree but there parents man headache.
lol
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
lol.
man dont go to extreme 15 are so much:)
Posted by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
Oh, god. I have never had such indecision ever before :(
Overall Con argeued better with the legal ramifications, and the societal ones as well.
BUT...
Pro definitely got all the moral points in terms of a culture moving forward.
Agh, which one carries more weight? Sadly I must concede that legal matters must be considered first, as without laws a society cannot balance. This is an EXTREMELY (extremely, extremely) small advantage to Con. I am sorry Pro :/
Guess my dream of 15 supermodel wives is vanished.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
there is no choice but to accept, its the solution.
Posted by jameswalters 3 years ago
jameswalters
Mikal has the statistics behind it and I agreed before the debate that Polygamy should be avoided, it ruins relationships (i.e. the debate on who is loved more), it removes the feeling that your spouse is as important as he/she should be.
Posted by MasturDbtor 3 years ago
MasturDbtor
Done.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
can you edit this to three rounds so its not overly drawn out lol
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Ozymandias_King_of_Kings 3 years ago
Ozymandias_King_of_Kings
MasturDbtorMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dealt with morality and human choice, but didn't deal with the argument of consenting adults doing what they want.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
MasturDbtorMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I must say I have changed my opinion on this. Pro used some things I would have argued from but Con did show how these wouldn't work in a society such as the USA and how potential exploitations would follow. Arguments to Con. Everything else was tied: Conduct was fine. Spelling an grammar were fine. No sources were given.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
MasturDbtorMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything was equal. Con put forth a stronger case and defended it well. Everyone is saying he shouldn't argue from morality as an excuse... That's BS. He had more than just morals, and even than, status quo morals make a good enough argument unless Pro brings up the objectiveness of those morals. Pro did not, so Con's moral argument stands.
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
MasturDbtorMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argument largely based in ethos as opposed to logos (dealt too heavily with morality). Con tax contention excellently addressed and resolved. Pro generally more convincing. Con also sprinkled more passive-aggressive comments than was polite or necessary. Html coding and graphs were nice though....
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 3 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
MasturDbtorMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that Con's strongest argument "tax system" was not hit hard enough by Pro.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
MasturDbtorMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons in comments.