Polygamy should be legal in the United States

Contention 1Con asks the question Why are these things (murder rape and child molestation) illegal in the USA? And answers it himself saying it is dependent on culture.But it is not justified by culture even if it is a product of culture. To justify policies based solely on "it's our culture" leads to self-referential reasoning in creating policies. Murder, rape, and child molestation can be justified on the basis of violating the rights of non-consenting or unable to consent others.Polygamy does not harm any nonconsenting others when it takes place between consenting adults.Contention 2Con points out how certain benefits could get out of control. That is why I said we could adjust marriage policies to limit the number of spouses you can allow to "join" in on certain benefits. In addition we could adjust it so that the more adults in a spouseship the less refund you can get even leading to a penalty at some point which we could apply even for mere cohabitants raising children together. And at some point of having lots of children there could be a cutoff to increased benefits.Furthermore the example con brings up of someone having 700 children is ridiculous. This would raise red flags and an investigation to see how a person could possibly be raising this many children. Perhaps this would be doable with many, many spouses but in that case my suggestion that with more spouses we decrease the financial benefits would solve that problem.Contention 3: Fractionizing ClaimsThe wife with 30 husbands could require the "claiming" of the spouse to be split into fractions, each only benefiting 1/30th. As with health insurance we can always change the policies in health insurance about how you are allowed to claim people or not. In my opinion we should abolish employer-based insurance altogether and only allow public and non-profit insurance which is in turn limited to covering affordability as well as occassional doctor's visits and perhaps contraception depending on what our long-term population growth needs are. If that proposal were passed the concern with health insurance would be moot.Contention 4: Even more OptionsThe point of this and the above contentions is that there are things we can do to get rid of the problems that would be related to legal polygamy while still legalizing it. If we can treat people equally and fairly and have no problems by just adjusting some policies while not disrupting anyone else's lives in making these adjustments (since the limitations would kick in only in having multiple spouses the adjustments wouldn't hurt monogamous couples). We could even eliminate certain financial benefits altogether if we wanted to. This would have to be determined in a nationwide public debate. It is a good question why people deserve special financial breaks just from calling themselves spouses while friends living together on a permanent, stable basis even taking care of children together don't get the same benefits.Contention 5: "Love" and "Committment" mean different things to different peopleCon says Marriage in itself is defined as an act of commitment between two people. It is a promise to love and cherish the other, as long as they leave. To death to us part, as most vows put it. Marriage was built on the foundation that it is between two people whom love each other, and are seeking to enter a live long commitment. Sappy and sentimental but in the end it is just one person's opinion. Society benefits more by people accepting alternative lifestyles and alternative ways of being and defining one's life and one's relationships as long as they are not harming other people or causing harm inside the relationship. What if two people's idea of marriage is one where they love each other, they live together, they share the most intimate moments, but the don't consider their "committment" to bar them from sexuality and even romance with others in addition to that and are open to living with yet more adults if they come to mutually feel comfortable with such an arrangement? What good are we doing for ourselves or for these people to tell them they are "wrong" if that is what makes them happy? Nothing, we're just putting up walls between ourselves fighting over what otherwise would've been a non-issue. Their relationship and the way they see it and what it means to them is just as valid as a traditional monogamous relationship. Legalizing polygamy accepts these people and their relationships as valid, welcoming them into the community and letting young people know they have their options open instead of pressuring people to conform to certain social relationships even if they know they will be happier in other arrangements.Not Sure what Con is driving at here"So pro would rather have all marriage be classified as civil unions, and marriage itself to be reformed as only a religious commitment. I disagree entirely. Marriage has always been defined as a commitment between two people."But defining the legal contract as just "civil union" would not change marriage being a "commitment between two people" at least not if that then continues on being the way people use the term. It would just divorce marriage from the legal benefits which would then be attached to civil unions.Cheating is only cheating because of the mutual understandings people reach in a relationshipCon says this would teach young people cheating is OK. But it wouldn't. Parents talk to their children about relationships all the time. If two people talk and agree they are to have no sexual or romantic attachments with other people and one of them breaks that agreement then that is cheating. But if they talk and say it's OK then it's not. They could also say that it's OK only with certain people or under certain circumstances. It's an agreement between consenting adults. The requirements of it are for the adults to decide not set in stone.Con also claims they wouldn't be able to function socially? How so? I would argue they would function better as they would be more aware of their wide range of options and so not feel any compulsion to go against what sort of relationship would truly make them happy.Different "Commitments"In response to "Commitment goes far beyond marriage..."Romantic/sexual 'commitment' (as used by "con) is not the same as occupational commitment. Commitment the way con is using it is being used to mean only being sexually/romantically involved with that one other person in con's opinion regardless of what the two people involved have in mind for what they want in their relationship."Commitment" in the sense used for a job would be much more analogous to being willing to lend a helping hand as part of a family and being responsible for what ever duties one takes on or any mistakes one makes.Protecting spousesMy point about protecting spouses in passing on inheritance to them still stands.Hospital VisitationOne thing con ignores is hospital visitation rights. Why shouldn't that be honored? As I said it would be reasonable for the hospital to limit the number of spouses in a room at a type and for how long but why exclude spouses from hospital visitation?