Polygamy is morally permissible.

"The colonization of other planets is a non-realistic, Star Wars-esque solution that is hardly an answer to clear and decisive empirics." It may be science fiction right now. But our space travel is a lot better than it was a hundred years ago. This may be a viable solution within the 21st century. But more importantly, this point serves to show that banning polygyny is not the only solution. "While there are hindrances such as reproductive rights stopping us from ethically halting *all* birth of children in any sort of international sense at this time, it certainly is a moral imperative to illegalize polygyny." Why do monogamous spouses have any more of a right to reproduction than polygynous spouses? The answer is, they don't. Reproductive rights hold across different forms of marriage. My opponent's statement "it certainly is a..." does not follow from the part before it. "In fact, all of the world's major religions and many of the world's countries have already denounced or banned the practice for the very reason that it has no societal or biological benefits." I do not think that most religions care very much about biology. In Christianity, for example, the church has held the notion that polygyny is wrong for much longer than biology as we know it has been around. So their reasons for denouncing polygyny are clearly not biological. I am less knowledgeable about other religions, though I am fairly certain that most religions are not motivated by biology. "...why would myriad societies ban polygyny if it was so useful to society? After all, law is the manifestation of a moral code." This is what I call an appeal to law: it's illegal, so it's probably wrong! This is fallacious in that the law, while sometimes intended to be a moral code, is not always. Sometimes law exists for reasons other than morals, such as for regulations, or to protect the ruling class. And even when laws do attempt to embody a moral code, they frequently get it wrong. Slavery was legal for hundreds of years, but we now agree that it is wrong. Abortion is legal in the US, but nearly half of the country thinks it is immoral[4]. So clearly, law as a moral code is far from perfect. "A) He just dropped every impact of polygyny in his case, and can no longer claim the benefits of diversity, increased species spread, etc." Diversity and population control are not mutually exclusive. Diversity is still a potential benefit. All that is necessary is an increase of diverse marriages and a decrease of less diverse marriages. I do not know what my opponent means by species spread, and so will not respond to that part. "B) ...If those of any major religions are joining in polygynous relationships, then their first concern, dogmatically, is to breed more children which will practice that same religion. Hence, polygyny will always yield far more children than not." The religious institutions may, but the institutions are not the ones who choose to have children. That choice is up to the spouses. On competition: Competition is not based on any absolute value. It is based on the relative values between different communities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 1 "Offering up polyandry as a moral act actually is an independent reason to vote con, but only because the two practices yield directly opposite results." Polyandry and polygyny are not direct opposites. They are opposite in that the gender roles are reversed, but that is about all. Some of the benefits and detriments of polygamy apply to both polyandry and polygyny. For example, the diversity argument applies to both. So it is entirely possible for both polygyny and polyandry to be morally acceptable alternatives. Contention 2 "[T]o say that a co-wife will be any more qualified to raise another woman's children (whether she be married to the same husband or not) than a daycare provider is arbitrary, as there is no genetic link in either relationship." There is no direct genetic link, but the links are still stronger. Marriage to a child's father forms a strong bond. Living with the child forms perhaps an even stronger one. The love that a concrete family can form is a powerful force. "Multiple wives are still only as good as step-parents, which does not establish any stronger of a genetic bond than any other human being who could come into contact with said child." This is true, but genetic bonds are far from the only factor. What is truly important is a richness and wholeness in the bond between parent and child. And this sort of deep connection can best be formed between close family. Step-parents can become just as attached to their children as genetic parents. The true bond does not come from genetics, but from a sense of motherhood that is best achieved through a lifelong adoption of the position of mother. Contention 3 "Number of partners won't inherently increase diversity. The proper biological choice of partner(s) will." When multiple partners are possible, not only is the possible diversity increased, the probability of diversity is increased. "[W]ith 6 billion people in the world, we clearly have an abundance of partners to choose from if the only benefit we are trying to achieve is genetic diversity." Theoretically, yes. But practically, we cannot choose any partner from anywhere in the world. In the vast majority of cases, choices for a mate is restricted to local geography. Polygyny increases the potential diversity even within a relatively small local community. *** Even in the genetically rich world of today, polygyny can increase the possibility and the probability of diversity. Polygyny, when necessary, can take the rate of reproduction beyond the limits of monogamy or polyandry. And polygyny provides a strong structure for the rearing of children. Children raised in a strong but diverse family can reap enormous benefits from this cooperative enterprise. The possible achievements through polygyny, a simple choice of marriage, are astounding. Vote PRO! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.absalom.com... [3] http://books.google.com...