Polygamy ought to be legal in the United States.

*Burden Analysis* In the US, we defer to allowing actions. In addition, when Congress tries to make an action illegal, the burden of proof always lies on those trying to do so. Consider a ban punishing cyborgs who pogo-stick. Even if there are no reasons not to have such a law, we still should not have it. Why? Because there is no reason to have had it in the first place. In order for Woodpecker to win, he not only needs to rebut me, but he also needs to show a clear and compelling reason for this ban. *Woodpecker's Argumentation* Woodpecker says that sometimes, a democracy should discriminate against some conception of the good life. I reject this at face. State neutrality is a core principle of democratic theory. Fundamentally, we must let citizens make lifestyle decisions for themselves. Woodpecker then claims the US ought to discriminate... 1. When a religious belief contradicts a foundational principle of society - My response to this is that individual choice and freedom from government intervention are also "foundational principles of society". We shouldn't choose gender equality over both of those principles in our legal system. If women want to marry in this fashion, should the government restrict their freedom in the name of gender equality? About 90% of stay at home parents in our country are women. These women are facilitating a stereotype and leading a lifestyle which is certainly not conducive to gender equality". Should the government prevent some of these women from doing so? Gender equality is an important part of our society, but liberty, privacy, general equality, and religious freedom are all more important, if not individually, then certainly collectively. 2. When a religious belief or practice causes significant third-party harms - Woodpecker has missed the mark just as badly here, because he misses two important points in the 'third-party harm' framework. A. In order for the government to be just in banning an activity, such a ban must cause a net decrease in harm. In this circumstance, the ban on polygamy causes more harm than it prevents. There are five reasons this is the case: i. Polygamy is not a perfect proxy for harm. Some of the people who are polygamists in the status quo do abuse their children and wives, but not many of them do. This ban is over-broad because it punishes the innocent along with the guilty. ii. More mainstream polygamists who don't practice it now (but would if the ban was removed) are not likely to be abusers, insofar as they are obeying the ban on polygamy itself. The ban causes harm because it prevents well-meaning people from exercising their autonomy. iii. A ban on polygamy doesn't effectively deter abusers. Obviously, if they are already willing to break multiple laws in order to abuse minors/spouses, the marginal deterrent of this ban is incredibly minimal. iv. Abuse of minors/spouses and marrying underage women are already both crimes. Even if polygamy was legal, the government could, and would, still prosecute and punish people who did those things. v. As I will discuss on my side of the case, there will actually be less total abuse in a world where polygamy was legal. B. Polygamy actually isn't directly causal of any third-party harms. Consider the problem of drunk driving. It might be the case that alcohol indirectly leads to the harms of drunk driving, but clearly the solution to this problem is not to ban alcohol. We ban drunk driving instead. Similarly, polygamy itself is not inherently harmful. Therefore, there are better means to eliminate any harms. An important concept behind the principle of harm minimization is the least-restrictive-means test. If there is a less restrictive means to prevent the potential harms of polygamy, a ban on polygamy is unjust. Not only are there less restrictive means to prevent the harms he mentions, but those means are already codified into law. We have laws banning child abuse, spousal abuse, underage marriage, incest etc. and those are a much more direct and appropriate way to deal with those issues. * My Argumentation * 1. We ought not interfere with a relationship between consenting adults. Woodpecker says, "Consent is not meaningful under coercion". This is certainly the case, but only if coercion is properly defined. Coercion occurs when there is no way in which an individual could act otherwise, that is, when there is no choice other than the one forced upon such an individual. Woodpecker claims they are coerced in two manners: A. Family pressure- This is absurd. Family pressure is not a meaningful form of duress. Woodpecker appears to be claiming that it is impossible for an individual under "family pressure" to have free choice. There are more problems with this than I can list here, so let me just point out the major issues. i. Plenty of the time people get married is when they are "under pressure from their families". Are all of these marriages invalid? ii. If there were no way to disobey "family pressure", I can imagine there would be far fewer issues of teenage pregnancy, drug use, crime etc. iii. It is empirically the case that there are women in polygamist families who go on to monogamous relationships. B. Fear of Divine Retribution- Even more absurd... First of all, as above, it is empirically not the case that this is actually coercive (otherwise, no Christian would ever commit a serious sin). In addition, she is making a choice to believe in divine retribution in the first place, so if this is coercion she is responsible for it. This argument still stands. Marriage, even in polygamous societies, is a free choice which the government should not interfere with. In addition, the government violates all kinds of important rights when it does so. Religious freedom, self-actualization, privacy, and general equality are all abrogated by this ban. While my opponent makes fun of the example of communion, it still holds true (especially since communion symbolizes cannibalism). Furthermore, some people do self-actualize through polygamy, and it is an pure hyperbole to say that they are all beaten and raped. He says, "Privacy can be infringed when a blatant rights violation is taking place." As I have demonstrated above, there is no inherent rights violation in polygamy. Finally, it seems odd that Woodpecker wants to through general equality out the door in favor of gender equality. 2. Legalization and regulation will reduce abuse. Woodpecker stakes his case on this issue of harms that exist in the status quo. This is a grave error given that this is a comparative debate. Obviously a ban on polygamy hasn't made the problem of abuse disappear. Given that, the question is whether the legalization of polygamy will reduce existing abuse. He believes it won't, and he claims, "Given that polygamy is largely responsible for much of the abuse in question, we should address the root cause..." I reject the notion that polygamy is actually the root cause or responsible for abuse. If this is true, then there would be no abuse in monogamous households. That said, allowing polygamy will improve relations with groups that practice it, giving the government official records and a better ability to investigate abuse, as well as increasing reporting. There is less abuse on my side, so this argument still stands. 3. Loss of marriage rights. Woodpecker conceded this point. He says that for some polygamous relationships society is unfairly discriminating. I think this says enough. Even if these are rare (and he has shown no empiric evidence proving this), he has admitted that the government is discriminating. The question that then must be asked is whether there is a less harmful way to deal with any of the issues he has raised. As I have shown, existing bans on abuse and marrying underage women already deal with these issues as best as is feasible, and this further ban is discriminatory, ineffective and unjust.