Debate Rounds (3)
Full Resolution: Polygamy should be legal in the United States
Polygamy involves marriage with more than one spouse.
I will begin my arguments in Round 2. Thanks.
I accept. I will be arguing that polygamy should not be legal in the United States.
The Legal Status of Marriage
Marriage is the legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which people, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship. Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving them new rights and obligations .
A marriage is considered a contract, so it must meet the requirements of a contract . For instance, you must be over the age of 18 and must have the mental capacity to enter into a contract. Marriage solidifies a business arrangement. Without this legal/business agreement, the relationship would be spiritual (emotional) in nature and not require any legal protection or sanctioning whatsoever. However in order to be afforded the rights and privileges that come with marriage, people must enter this legal agreement. In this debate, my opponent will have the burden of proving why this legal status should be limited to just two people.
The History of Marriage and Family
There is no such thing as a truly "traditional" marriage, since the definition and standards for marriage have changed many times since its inception . Throughout history, different types of families have existed based on the cultural needs and preferences of the society.
Polygamy was widely accepted throughout the world until the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church imposed the rule of having just one wife . Prior to that, the Hebrews, Chinese, Africans and people all over the world engaged in polygamous relationships. The Hindu god, Krishna, had 16,108 wives. Polygamy was also accepted by various holy books including the Bible and the Torah; for instance Solomon had as many as 700 wives. Today polygamy is still common in many Muslim countries in West Africa . There can be no doubt that historically, this status was permitted in the vast majority of cultures.
In 1998 the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than a thousand societies. Of these just 186 were monogamous. "Some anthropologists believe that polygamy has been the norm through human history. In 2003, New Scientist magazine suggested that, until 10,000 years ago, most children had been sired by comparatively few men. Variations in DNA, it said, showed that the distribution of X chromosomes suggested that a few men seem to have had greater input into the gene pool than the rest. By contrast most women seemed to get to pass on their genes. Humans, like their primate forefathers, it said, were at least mildly polygynous" .
There is a practical utility in polygamy. In 1972, the evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers outlined the foundational reasons for the reproductive benefits of having more than one spouse. In short, reproductive success is limited by number of mates . Further, there may be social utility in polygamy. Consider the fact that rather than engaging in extramarital affairs, polygamists choose to stay in committed relationships with their sexual partners.
The point of this section is to note that there is no definitively right or wrong way to experience sex and relationships. People as individuals have subjective values based on their culture (religion, exposure, economic or pragmatic circumstance, etc.). It is possible to love multiple people at once; for instance I currently love many of my friends and family. Strong feelings are not limited to one exclusive person. Neither is sexual attraction or the ability to be in a relationship and parent effectively.
A marriage is a merger. It requires laying everything out on the table and some negotiation. It involves combining assets and a transfer of ownership or joint ownership regarding communal property. It also has to do with assessing power of attorneys -- in other words deciding what rights and legal relationships people have toward each other. For instance if someone suffers from a serious injury or illness, spouses often act as power of attorneys who can make medical decisions on their partner's behalf.
Like all business arrangements, marriage requires consent and the signing of a legal document to seal the deal. Contracts outline the specific expectations, obligations and parameters for the agreement. The contract of marriage comes with specific conditions as well.
Contracts are NOT limited to two people. A multi-lateral contract is an agreement between several people or groups of people . The government's role is not to legislate morality or preferences, but instead to protect rights and facilitate contracts. The government does not get to have a say in dictating people's personal relationships or lifestyles, so long as they involve mentally competent adults. Similarly the government doesn't get to decide the terms of people's mutual and voluntary contracts. The government's role here is simply to ensure the terms of the contract are being met.
The government does impose certain standards about what qualifies as a legal contract. For example it sets the standard for legal capacity, meaning someone that is drunk, underage or under duress cannot legally provide consent. Con will be responsible for explaining why the government should limit the contract of marriage to 2 people against the will of other adults of sound legal mind. Whereas the government has an incentive to protect the interest of vulnerable parties, inhibiting polygamy acts to restrict the interest of fully consenting parties.
Legalizing polygamy gives people the freedom of choice. Americans should live free from the tyranny of other people's moral preferences, so long as nobody is being directly harmed (aggressed against). This could also be an integral part of religious freedom. Criminalizing polygamy unconstitutionally deprives certain people of their First Amendment right to freely practice their religion. Under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
When the Supreme Court ruled against legalized polygamy, they did so under the premise that some might suggest a number of things falls under their religion (i.e. human sacrifice) and that would be problematic. However human sacrifice involves murder and the aggression against another person; polygamy does not. Therefore, since polygamy is essentially a business contract between mentally sound and consenting adults, it should be legally upheld as it is a victimless crime. No one is being directly harmed in such a way that warrants legal intervention.
Note: where the government allows for specific provisions for spouses and only one spouse is reasonable, the terms of the contract can be amended to specify which partner receives which benefits. For example, if two spouses disagree on how the third (incapacitated) spouse's medical treatment should be handled, the contract should mention which spouse takes precedence or has the final say. This is similar to just about every other contract with multiple parties. Contracts involving more people are trickier, but they are legal and with perfectly good reason.
Polygamy allows for a strong familial support system and helps provide economic stability. It also provides extra fatherly or motherly support to those in need. Polygamist George Q. Cannon quipped, "Our crime has been: we married women instead of seducing them; we reared children instead of destroying them." There is nothing inherently immoral about loving or engaging in relationships with multiple people. Moreover, the government does not exist to legislate morality or specific religious ideals, as that would be unconstitutional. The government does however facilitate contracts.
It is perfectly legal to enter into multi-party contracts. Since marriage as far as government is concerned acts as a legal contract, then it is perfectly reasonable for polygamy to be allowed. Not allowing polygamy is arguably a violation of one's religious freedom, and certainly a complete and utterly unnecessary violation of people's liberty.
 Trivers, R. L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell, ed. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp. 136-179.
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent, Danielle, for instigating what I expect to be an interesting, productive debate.
I will later discuss polygamy in detail, but first, let me ask a somewhat broad (albeit important) question: Why is "marriage" a legal institution? In other words, why does "marriage" constitute a de jure relationship, as opposed to a de facto relationship, like, say, "friendship"?
As a legal institution, a marital relationship is not simply a private bond between parties. Rather, it is a relationship that exists both (1) between the married parties and (2) between the married parties and the State—which, in a democratic republic such as that which can be found in the United States, serves to represent the public interest.
The institution of "marriage" is granted exclusive legal status by the United States government, and those who are married are granted exclusive privileges (their tax burdens are reduced, they receive more redistributionary benefits, etc.). Of course, this means that married people are granted benefits at the expense of the rest of the public (i.e., non-married individuals).
The reason that marriage is an exclusive legal institution—indeed, the reason that we can justify the government-orchestrated reallocation of wealth from the unmarried to the married—is that it serves the public interest. Marriage, as an institution, serves the interests of both the non-married and the married—and it outweighs the moral cost of the inequality that implicitly comes with its exclusivity.
For the rest of the debate, I would like the reader to continually ask himself or herself: While the legalization of polygamy would make the institution of marriage less exclusive and hence more "equal," would its addition serve the public interest? Indeed, would it work against the public interest?
My contention is that the legalization of polygamy would work against the public interest. Therefore, its legalization would defeat the purpose of having an exclusive legal institution called "marriage" in the first place.
Narrowing Things Down
In the Ethnographic Atlas, out of 1,231 societies studied, 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had frequent polygyny, 186 were monogamous, and 4 had polyandry . Clearly, polygyny (marriage between a man and multiple women) is significantly more common than polyandry (marriage between a woman and multiple men). Nonfraternal polyandry (mariage between a woman and multiple men who are not related to one another) is virtually nonexistent. Why is this? When multiple men have the same wife, it becomes unknown who the father is of each child. As a result, the children are neglected and have a far less likelihood of surviving. This is why nonfraternal polyandry has been "selected out" as a sociobiological behavior, while polygyny—which does not come with this problem—persists in certain cultures .
With the above explanation in mind, I will only be talking about polygyny, since polygyny would be, by far, the most common manifestation of polygamy in the United States if it were legalized therein.
Moving Past Polygyny
Why has polygyny been abandoned in modern developed countries? According to a study conducted at the University of British Columbia, polygyny causes crime, poverty, violence, gender inequality, and far-from-optimal reproductive outcomes .
According to the above study, the pool of unmarried men that results from widespread polygyny resort to crime in order to gain resources—in a desperate attempt to compete for the few remaining women. The society is overcome by the struggle of lower-class men to overcome the scarcity of unmarried women. This would involve committing rape (in order to forcefully impregnate a woman and thereby attempt to pass on one's genes), committing robbery (in order to gain resources to attract the few available women), and committing homicide (in order to get rid of the powerful, wealthy men who are able to marry multiple women at any given time) .
By adopting monogamy, modern societies were able to avoid the strife and poverty that the above system came with. Moreover, modern societies have overcome the hurdles that may necessitate polygyny in more primitive societies: there is no shortage of males (due to disease, famine, etc.), and there is no extreme environmental stress that would make it advantageous for extremely fit males to monopolize reproduction (at the costs described in the prior paragraph).
With a monogamous system come smaller households, more parental involvement, and more "blood-relatedness." As a direct result, a monogamous system comes with fewer incidences of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, and intra-household violence . Monogamy has been conducive to social equality, democracy, and order. Our civilization has moved past polygamy, and we ought to have no desire to look back.
Polygamy and the Public Interest
Given what we now know about polygamy, how can we possibly accept the preposterous notion that our society would benefit from the legalization of polygamy? In order to avoid the problems that a polygamous system naturally breeds, we ought to discourage the practice of polygamy—not to force the public to subsidize it and thereby financially incentivize its practice.
Because of the reasons described in the prior section, legalized polygamy would cause the legal institution of marriage, as a whole, to be less effective at serving the public interest. The purpose of a legal institution is to better serve the public interest. Therefore, we ought to keep polygamy illegal.
Danielle forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Udel 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: rfd in comments section
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.