Intermediate Debate Competition R2: State Legislatures should decriminalize Polygamy

Polygamy, even in cases where all partners involved receive equal benefits, is fundamentally a practice of disproportionate equalities. Problems can arise from tension in regards to areas concerning conjugal rights, burden of income, household responsibility, etc. because of the asymmetrical function in the relationship.I won't dispute that polygamous arrangements may result in an asymmetrical balance of labor, benefits, sex, etc. This argument alone may well be sufficient to dissuade the average American from seeking a polyamorous marriage and I would not begrudge any person such a fundamental, personal right regarding their own happiness. Plural marriage has no appeal for me and I'm sure I share that sentiment with the majority. However, we do not deny Americans the right to any practice based on popular appeal. We don't criminalize an act simply because it might lead to an unfair balance of power. Were that the case, we might have cause to strike down every corporation in America. The question to consider is whether such asymmetries are a sufficient threat to public good to compel states to forbid such practice. Isn't the answer obviously not?In any case, what marriage is ever equal? Few couples are satisfied with the intrinsic balance of household income or labor or sex. Why hold a marriage to some higher standard of satisfaction simply based on the number of participants? A survey taken of traditional societies in the world reveals that only .47% percent of marriages practice polyandry. Arguments for the denial of rights based on the size of the minority are not compelling. When discussing non-traditional marriages, whether it be polygynous or polyandrous or gay, the numbers of the minority will always be small. The state's authority to deny a practice is not increased in reverse proportion to the size of the minority, however often legislatures behave as if this were true....the majority take part in what is known as fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers marry one wife. This type has criminal basis in at least two ways: polygamy and incest. And this a public threat? Polygynous marriages also often include sisters. In the family picture I included in round 2, two of the wives are sisters. Many states offer genetic screening programs that advise newlyweds about potential genetic risks. We don't empower states to forbid any marriage based on those test results, and we certainly don't want to give the government such awesome power over our happiness. To the extent that inbreeding between siblings increases the likelihood of congenital disorders in children, health professionals should strongly caution newlyweds against inbreeding. Beyond that, I can't see how such arrangements are the business of anybody outside of the family. Just as states need to stop caring about gay love or polyamorous love, states need to stop worrying even when two brothers wish to marry one woman.In fact, if we're worried about incest, we need to legalize polygamy in order to reduce the potential of genetic disorders in current outlaw communities. Today, these hidden communities limit contact with non-polygamous communities with the result of small numbers of eligible, marriageable partners. The polygamist community in Colorado City, AZ, for example, has the world's highest incidence in the world of fumarase deficiency because half the town is descended from two founding families. [1] I expect many second cousin marriages could be prevented if these communities were allowed to come out of the closet and seek partners elsewhere.Numerous studies report negative effects on women in polygamous marriages, as well as children. None of which is improved by making these women and children outlaws and much of which may be prevented by the healthier life of living in the open. We know that isolated rural communities in general are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to healthcare, [2] and we know that criminalization of polygamy drives these families into the isolation of rural communities. Likewise, enfranchisement is the likeliest path to improving the academic achievement and economic status of polygamous children. The most important factor impacting the health and well-being of existing polygamist groups in the US is their fear of prosecution. Isolation makes such groups vulnerable to exploitation by predatory fundamentalists like the Jeffs family in Colorado City. Under the Jeffs, women were afraid to come forward with complaints about abuse and non-consensual sex because they feared that they might lose their families in the course of any investigation. Children were pulled from school and put to work, but those children risked losing their entire family if they complained. If polygamy itself were not a crime, Colorado City women and children would be empowered to seek civil remedies, file for divorce, demand property and custody rights confident that the core family would remain intact.After all, there's nothing intrinsic to polygamy that demands academic weakness or low self-esteem. These are symptoms common to the poverty of isolation and exploitation, not the necessary result of plural marriage. Studies reveal that... the population is made up of about 50% women and 50% men. This gives everyone more or less an equal chance to mate. Does the state have some civic obligation in this regard? I don't think so. The numbers of families likely to voluntarily participate in polygamist marriages is going to be a very small minority. Small enough, I expect, to prevent widespread shifts in the number of available partners. The legalization of gay marriages has a far more significant impact on the availability of mating partners, but nobody still makes the argument that gay people must be required to make themselves available for heterosexual procreation. Consider that the American West attracts a more substantial portion of single males while the South has a larger proportion of available women. Does the state have some obligation to redistribute population so that every woman gets her fair shot at a man or vice versa? Clearly not. Further, let's agree that substantial population increase is no longer an important social or fiscal benefit to digital age economies, so governments should feel less concern regarding citizen mating habits and baby-making. Additionally, there is significant data evidencing that single men are much more likely to commit crimes.Again, I hardly think the decriminalization is going to create a rush to the polygamist altar leaving populations of single men behind. In a society where men and women have equal rights to family planning, division of property, child custody, polygamy is never going to be a popular configuration. Fewer people are getting married today and they are marrying at a much later age than even a generation ago. By comparison with these major social trends, the impact of polygamy will be undetectable.Pro has concentrated her arguments on the negative impacts of current polygynist marriages in the US. While I don't contradict her concerns, I also don't find those concerns a compelling argument for prohibition. We might cite similar statistics regarding the problems of marrying an alcoholic, but we don't want to live in a country where the government prevents us from marrying a drunkard should we choose so unwisely. Further, we can't genuinely know the social impact of decriminalization since polygamy has almost never been practiced in a society where women have significant civil rights. I see no reason to assume that decriminalization will cause the disempowerment of women, and every reason to believe that an extension of the marriage franchise may actually empower women already living polygamist lives in the underground.[1] http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com...[2] http://ruralhealth.stanford.edu...