Should Polygamy (plural marriage) be Legal?
Debate Rounds (4)
I believe that if two consenting women want to marry the same man, or if two consenting men want to marry the same woman, they should be allowed to. If they're not hurting anyone, why should it be illegal?
Can't wait for someone to debate with me.
Man = (1)
Woman 1 = (2)
Woman 2 = (3)
If (1) has a job and at that job they provide health insurance, due to laws already established, the spouse would also be covered. This would mean that (2) and (3) have coverage. This would put an undue burden on the insurance companies but also the other consumers of the insurance that only had 1 spouse. Insurance companies would be forced to provide care for an extra person with any extra compensation.
Without a explicit statute in the law that limited the number of spouses, the primary party (1), could potentially have an unlimited number of spouses, be that male or female. This would destroy the system of dependent insurance and the insurance companies would simply shut down.
The welfare industry is another example of an industry that would collapse under the burden of polygamy. (1) could work but then his spouses could "stay at home". This would create multiple dependents under (1) and would have an effect on government programs and the poverty level.
Many other industries would face this burden as well, without and specific definition or limit on spouses. Not only the industry, but the other consumers of the industry.
Even with the economic aspects considered, that doesn't change the fact that plural marriage should be everyone's right. There was once a time when interracial marriage was deemed unethical; now it's commonplace. And the same process is happening to gay marriage as we speak. So I see no reason why polygamy should not be next.
Marriage is a legal ruling. It deals with all aspects the economy, so to simply ignore the economic situation wouldn't be right. Although we could reform the economics through laws, what would they be? If we limited the economics to only cover 1 spouse, then getting married for legal reason would be pointless.
I won't debate the moral side here because the debate requested for a legality, not morality.
I will present another argument here though considering the estate. When a spouse dies, typically the estate is directly given to the surviving spouse. In polygamy, the spouses aren't typically all married to each other, only to 1 common person. So if (1) has 4 spouses and he dies, which spouse gets the estate? Or would the estate be split up, in that case, there be ugly legal battles to determine if it is fair or not.
I understand that these could be debated by themselves but they are the issues that come with polygamy.
I think matters of human rights matter exclusively to the moral side of the debate. When dealing with human rights, the economic influences are the second priority; the first is the human rights in question.
And I don't see how your estate point is relevant. If my dad dies, my mom would take ownership of all his things. If a man with many wives dies, his many wives would take ownership of all his things. And after he died, perhaps they would split up, take their share of the estate and got their separate ways. That's not complicated at all.
There is nothing illegal about being with more than one person. Anyone can be "married" to more than on person whenever they want, just not under the eyes of the law. Our entire law foundation is set up around a binary partnership, we can't ask everyone that deals with legality to simply change practice.
Well, that's the point; the eyes of the law should recognize plural marriages.
And yes, I know I haven't come up with many solutions to your "undue burden on the system" point, but I'm not a lawyer, I don't see why I'm expected to come up with a whole new tax plan, or new health insurance plans.
Marriage is more than just a ceremony with a guy in a suit and a woman in a white dress. There are countless legal benefits to marriage, including social security, joint income tax returns, military benefits, and public assistance benefits. And those benefits are not available to those with multiple spouses.
Since this is the last round, here are my closing statements; polygamy should be legal simply because you are not hurting anyone else by doing it, and consenting adults should be able to decide how many spouses they have for themselves.
My closing statement: Polygamy, although morally doesn't victimize anyone, places an ethical burden on the institutions that give marriage so many benefits. It is these burdens that make polygamy illegal and provide the basis of it remaining illegal. It would be abused by the families in trying to get additional benefits and more value from each benefit on the basis of them having multiple partners and would be unfair to the binary families.
Thanks for the debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by XVIII18 11 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:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: The south also used economic reasons to limit the rights of African Americans. Because of this, Con's argument did not touch base with me at all.
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.