Polygamy ought to be legal in the United States.

Good luck, Zeb. Burden Analysis I don't accept the assertion that there is some sort of unusual burden on me in this debate. If neither of us makes persuasive arguments, we ought defer to the status quo. If Pro gives you no compelling reason to change the law, the hassle of changing alone combined with the popular opposition to polygamy ought be enough to win me the debate. All that being said, Pro's advocacy is very clearly in the wrong. Constructive argumentation Con philosophy - Though in general the western liberal state ought not discriminate between deferring conceptions of the good life, there are several circumstances under which such discrimination is totally acceptable, and probably obligatory. Two such circumstances are relevant to this debate. 1. When a religious belief or practice fundamentally contradicts or interferes with a foundational principle of liberal society, the government has a right to interfere. For example, I would argue that France was completely justified in its recent decision to ban the Muslim burqa, and I would reason thus. Gender equality is a necessary prerequisite for any truly liberal society, and insofar as the burqa functions as a symbol for the dominion of man over woman, even though it is of religious significance, banning it is justified because the basic equality of man and woman is more important to the preservation of a liberal society than allowing a secondary religious practice. I admit to oversimplifying the symbolism of the burqa to some extent, but even if you don't buy the example, the argument is sound. 2. When a religious belief or practice causes significant third-party harms, especially to minors, the government has an obligation to intercede. This, I think, is evident. An example relevant to this debate is female genital mutilation. Though it is a widespread cultural and religious practice with longstanding traditional justifications, FGM both contradicts the aforementioned liberal principle of gender equality and causes significant physical harms. Under this philosophy, I will advance two arguments. 1. Polygamy ought not be legalized in the United States because both in terms of symbolism and practice it contradicts the principle of gender equality, a principle fundamental to liberal society. Polygamy as practiced in the US is actually almost exclusively polygyny--the marriage of one man to multiple women. This is the practice advocated, for example, by fringe groups of the Mormon church. First, polygyny is by nature oppressive towards women. Any group of women married to a single man, even if they have entered the relationship willingly, are less empowered than they would be without the other women. Because the wives must compete with each other, they will never be on equal footing with their husband. The man will be able to play the women against each other and use jealousy to get his way. For example, wives sometimes punish their husbands by withholding sex. This strategy is much less effective in a polygynous relationship because every wife is presented with a clear case of Prisoner's Dilemma. Any one of the wives has much to gain (special treatment by her husband, favoritism towards her children) by being the one who breaks the standoff first, so presenting a united front will probably be impossible. The same will be true for most other conflicts between the husband and his wives. In a society that recognizes the fundamental importance of gender equality, this is incredibly problematic. However, even if you don't buy that polygyny is always oppressive in theory... Second, polygyny as practiced in the US is unquestionably a form of oppression. The only major religious group I am aware of that practices polygyny in the US is the FDLS (Pro can certainly correct me if I'm wrong about this). The problems with polygyny as practiced by the FDLS are numerous. 1. Women are assigned to a husband by a church leader, and have no choice in the matter themselves. 2. Sexual abuse is overlooked, as a wife is regarded as her husband's property. 3. Traditional family roles are propagated to an extreme extent, as the husband is the only one expected to pursue a career. Unless Pro can effectively demonstrate that polygyny does not serve as a proxy for these forms of oppression, it is clear that polygamy should remain illegal in the US. 2. Polygamy ought be illegal because as practiced it causes clear third-party harms to minors. First, any of the women forced into polygynous marriages by their family and the FDLS are minors, and therefore ought be protected from such sexual coercion. A polygynous society by nature encourages early marriage, because the high demand for women means that those women who are perceived as being sexually mature enough for marriage are quickly snapped up, as it were. Thus there is an incentive as a man to marry women at as young an age as possible, while they are still available. Second, many young men are actually forced out of polygamous societies, because fierce competition for a limited number of women means that the older, more powerful men of the society have a huge incentive to limit competition whenever possible. Third, polygamy often leads to abuse, neglect, and incest. Having many wives and children means that a man spends much less time with each, leading to numerous problems in terms of parental care and responsibility. For all these reasons, polygamy ought be illegal. Rebuttal 1. "As long as a relationship occurs between consenting adults, the government has no legitimate authority to ban it." The problem with this argument is that consent is not meaningful under coercion. Most women married by the FDLS do consent, but do so under pressure from their families and out of fear of divine retribution. Most women also consent to FGM, because they believe they will not be marriageable before God while in possession of a clitoris, but that does not make FGM okay. Next, Pro talks about the idiocy of the idea of "degradation of marriage" which is a terrible argument, and one that I have not made. Then Pro claims that banning polygamy would be like banning communion. This is absurd. Communion neither symbolically nor physically oppresses women, and is not a cause of major third-party harms to minors. In the same vein, self-actualization tends to be difficult when one's husband is alternatively beating and raping one. Privacy can be infringed on when a blatant rights violation is taking place, and moreover is not being violated here, because polyamory is not banned at present. Though sex is not, marriage is unquestionably a public affair. And finally, if Pro recognizes that equality is important, surely he must agree that gender equality is more fundamental than second-level religious equality. 2. Legalization and regulation will prevent abuse. a. Fewer underage marriages - The unavailability of marriage licenses for under-aged couples hasn't stopped the FDLS so far. There is no reason to believe that legalization would change that. b. Increased reporting of abuse - The frequency of abuse among the polygamous is a huge concession by Pro. Given that polygamy is largely responsible for much of the abuse in question, we should address the root cause rather than simply increase reporting. Moreover, given the closed, unegalitarian nature of groups which practice polygamy, increased reporting by women of abuse by husbands and fathers is highly unlikely. 3. Loss of marriage rights I largely concede this point, insofar as I recognize that in the case of happy, non-coercive, polyamourous relationships society is unfairly discriminating. However, such relationships are, as I've shown, very rare. As such, the many harms of legalizing, and thus legitimizing, polygamy should outweigh the very few harms that result from the status quo. I will talk more about this point in the next round, space permitting. Woodpecker