Looking for someone to argue AGAINST polygamy!

Con's Thesis: "I am against legalizing polygamy in the United States. To do otherwise, it would destroy the sanctity of marriage and the values of the society. The likelihood that conflict occurs will increase if polygamy is allowed. Lastly, there are no strong reasons as to why legalize polygamy. " To move onward, I would first like to ask you if you are against or for gay marriage. The definition of marriage is" Marriage: the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Alternatively : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage Gay marriage goes against this original definition. Now, I would also like to ask clarification as to what you mean when you say "destroy" the sanctity of marriage, and the "values of society. " The values of society, as varied as they are, could possibly come from many sources. Let"s pick government for the first one. The nation was founded on the belief that church and state are separate, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " This statement should allow religions that are pro-polygamy to freely exercise their belief, so either the refusal of polygamy is AGAINST societal values or, if governmental dictations do not shed light on the societal values, we have to look to something else. Concepts such as slavery were once commonplace, which is a good indicator of how beliefs that were once "societal values," can be improved upon for the betterment of an individual, society, and entire nation. So I am unconvinced that polygamy would destroy societal values, and if it did I am unconvinced that would be a bad thing. I am arguing that polygamy is not immoral, (I apologize if this wasn"t clear in my opening statement) and therefore should be legal in the U. S. My next point is in relation to "destroy(ing) the sanctity of marriage. " The definition of marriage, as I put above, is the lawfully recognized union of man and woman. Within that category, you could have a woman lawfully wedded to a man, and then lawfully wedded to another as well. The definition itself is not in any way against polygamy, besides that it isn"t recognized by law. The allowing of gay marriage was once outside of legal ramifications, but is now legal in 16 states and increasing. This is just another, although more controversial than abolishing slavery to some people, example of how laws change to accommodate moral values. So if the law recognized polygamy, it would be within the definition, and it not being so is seemingly a matter of semantics in this case. The likelihood of conflict that you refer to I would ask for clarification as well. Are you talking about emotional conflict between partners, physical conflict, separation, jealousy, etc? 41% of marriages involve some type of cheating and 54-57% of people have cheated in a relationship, and I posted a link below as well. Given this already huge number, I believe that having a clear understanding of the relationship involved would drastically cut conflict. The semantics of entering a polygamous relationship would obviously have to be talked over by the individuals, just like the option of having kids (commonly), before marriage. So all participants would be fully aware, and I believe on a psychological level this would greatly REDUCE conflict. Not communicating is one of the biggest reasons relationships fail, and I think you could agree that most affairs are not communicated. A polygamous relationship allows for this level of communication at the beginning, so no curveballs are thrown. I have seen no data that polygamous relationships, when legally and morally (consensually) carried out cause more conflict. Only in the cases where extremist groups, isolated from society, and pushing religious goals, were involved were there problems involved. Lastly, ""there are no strong reasons as to why legalize polygamy," can be argued against quite succinctly. You will admit, I believe, there are reasons at least. Whether or not they are strong is awfully relative. So I will concede, that relative to you, you have no strong reasons to legalize polygamy. I will also concede that even I may not have strong reasons. But I can guarantee that there are reasons others have that are passionate, that are logical, and that are ethical. For example, speaking of people and marriage. If you disagree with gay marriage I won"t dispute that here, if you agree, great. But what about interracial marriage? In the 1860"s, even after slavery was abolished, it was still illegal to marry a black human being if you were white. So if two people of varying color truly loved each other, this love could not be shared to what is believe to be the maximum extent of it, in other words marriage. Likewise, if three people truly love each other romantically, they cannot fully share this love because of legal restrictions. So if Kyle has an equal amount of romantic love for both Leslie and Jolene, and everyone so involved is aware of the commitments involved, they should be allowed to express this love to the fullest. Also, if Kyle was already married to Leslie, and then with Leslie"s full consent a relationship developed with Jolene, they wouldn"t have a way of including Jolene fully. One person would always have the status as opposed to it being an equal relationship between the three of them. Because of this inequality it"s safe to say more conflict would occur. I once again thank Con for engaging with me, and look forward to your rebuttal. If you have any questions as to the order of this debate etc. , feel free to mention so we can give it more order if possible. . http://www.law.cornell.edu... . http://gaymarriage.procon.org... . http://www.statisticbrain.com... (detailed statistics on infidelity)