Polygamy ought to be legal in the United States.

Thanks for accepting, Woodpecker, good luck! *Burden Analysis* Normally, the affirmative bears the burden of proof because he advocates a change in policy from the status quo. In this circumstance, however, the burden of proof lies on Woodpecker. Why? Because in the United States and in all countries with a semblance of code law, an action is assumed to be legal unless there is a compelling justification for the creation of a law to make that action illegal. For example, if there were equal evidence on both sides on a debate about whether a given action should be illegal or legal, we defer to allowing the action, that is, we defer to that action being legal. Therefore, if you find both of our claims equally persuasive (or useless, as the case may be), we should allow polygamy. *Argumentation* 1. As long as a relationship occurs between consenting adults, the government has no legitimate authority to ban it. In Western, liberal democracies, has a legitimate authority to restrict liberty ONLY when it is protecting the rights of others. Even then, if the harm is minimal or vague, we defer to keeping an action legal and regulating it. Opponents of gay marriage and polygamy often say that it will "degrade the value of marriage", whatever that happens to be. I contest that a marriage between loving individuals can degrade anything. Furthermore, even if you buy that polygamy "degrades" marriage's inherent value, that is an amorphous harm which can't be resolved through a legislative ban. Consider smoking cigarettes, which has a harm even more substantial than a degraded value of marriage. We should still allow people to smoke because their right to autonomy is much more important than amorphous harms. In circumstances where the harms become significant, like when someone smoking in a confined public building (or when someone in a marriage is abusing a spouse) we can regulate the activity. But a blanket ban is a gross rights violation with no persuasive justification. A ban on polygamy violates all of the following rights. a. Religious Freedom - Some religious groups [such as fundamentalist Mormons] hold polygamy as a fundamental tenet. A governmental ban on polygamy prevents them from expressing their religion as they see fit. Consider a ban on Communion. It would be totally arbitrary and a horrendous violation of the rights of Catholics. b. Self-actualization - In modern society, we accept that individuals have a right to actualize in any manner they see fit (as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others). If a couple (or group) believes that they would be better off if they married, society ought not intervene. c. Privacy - The government has no place in the bedrooms of consenting individuals. Marriage is fundamentally a private affair. d. Equality - Marriage gives a number of rights and privileges to married individuals. It is a violation of equal opportunity if people of some religious faiths, creeds, or lifestyles are prevented from exercising those rights. 2. Legalization and regulation will prevent abuse. One of the only arguments against polygamy which isn't totally flawed is that polygamy is sometimes a proxy for abuse. However, legalization and regulation of polygamy results in a variety of positive effects for parties who could be potentially abused: a. Fewer underage marriages - Even if we accept that coercive marriages of young women to older men are bad, we can still solve that problem with the legalization of polygamy. When the government has to confer marriage licenses on every couple desiring to marry, the state has an official record of these marriages and existing laws regulating underage marriages come into play. This will prevent underage marriage from becoming as much of a part of polygamy. b. Abuse will be easier to discover and treat - Abuse exists in any form of marriage, and there are existing institutions to discover and solve it. When the state has an official record of a married couple (or group), a spouse has legal recourse in order to obtain damages from another abusive spouse. In addition, social workers and government officials will have more access to these homes because spouses won't be afraid of getting arrested for polygamy if they go to the police to report abuse. 3. Being married gives individuals certain important rights. By denying marriage to polygamists the government is unconstitutionally discriminating against them. Polygamists and monogamists ought to be legally and morally equivalent, but the fact of the matter is that the government denies certain benefits and rights to polygamists by not recognizing polygamist unions as marriage. Spouses get all kinds of benefits under modern law, and there is no reason that these benefits should be excluded from polygamists. These benefits include a. Employment benefits b. Health Insurance benefits c. Tax-free transfer of property d. Spousal privilege in court cases and the list quite literally goes on and on. For every example I can list, Woodpecker needs to show a reason why this discrimination is not unconstitutional as per the 'compelling government interest' standard established by he Supreme Court. What compelling state interest is hindered when a polygamous husband is able to purchase health insurance that covers more than one wife? What compelling state interest is hindered when polygamous marriage itself occurs? *Challenge* On a purely theoretical level, Woodpecker could argue that we shouldn't allow gay marriage, interracial marriage, or marriage between adults of a large age differential. I doubt he will stoop that low, however. If he thinks that any of those should be allowed, he needs to draw a bright line between those activities and polygamous marriage. Thanks, Woodpecker! I'm looking forward to a fun and interesting debate. Zabcheckmate