Polygamy should be legalized in the United States.

I will first address my opponent's opening argument and then I will focus on his latest round. Part One: My opponent starts off the debate by stating that societies have functioned with the practice of polygamy. This is noted but this fact doesn't really prove that it should be legalized in the United States. The next argument made is that polygamy presents flexibility of choice for marriage partners. Again, this argument does not doing anything to argue for the legalization of polygamy. For example, this same argument could be used to argue for pedophilia. Adults should also have the flexibility in marrying children right? While the two practices are different, the same argument could be used to support both of them. So I don't think this does anything to show that polygamy should be legalized. My opponent then says that "Adultery is certainly a problem and legalizing polygamy would arguably result in less occurrences of it. " The problem here is that they don't even try to support their claim. The argument doesn't make much sense to me either. If a person is married to one wife and wants another, he would have to cheat on his wife in order to meet the second woman. So the legalization of polygamy would actually increase the issue of adultery Now my opponent claims that the families with group marriages would do well financially. Again, this is another bare assertion. More people in a house means more people to take care of. And the average cost a human pays every year to survive is around 20,000 dollars (. http://opensourceecology.org...). This number does not even include the amount of college debt, and etc. .. a single person has to pay. So it seems that more people in a house would add to the costs. They also mention that there is more likely to have a person at home to take care of child-rearing. I don't see how this point is relevant. It is an assumption, but people living now seem to be doing okay living with having multiple wives. Now lets address the constitutional argument. My opponent claims that not legalizing polygamy infringes on some religious peoples rights. The problem here is that there are also religious beliefs in which sacrificing humans to a God is okay and that doesn't mean we should allow that practice. In other words, not all religious practices are allowed. So my opponent has to prove that this practice is protected by the constitution and I do not believe that they have done so. As for the supposed right to pursue happiness, that right actually doesn't exist since it is not in the constitution. The Declaration of Independence doesn't give any American rights. And besides, the whole thing about pursuing happiness was about financial success and not about polygamy. So that argument doesn't hold up as well. Part Two: My quotes from the beginning are kind of well known so I didn't feel like it was necessary to cite them. But I did actually mention where the first one came from and the other three I wrote down a while ago and couldn't tell you where they came from. But I don't think points should be deducted since the quotes are used often. My opponent starts off his rebuttals by saying that it doesn't matter that the constitution doesn't mention marriage. I happen to agree. But that wasn't my original point. Right after saying that I said that since the practice of polygamy was never condones by the founding fathers, it was fair to say that the men were not for it. This would in affect mean that polygamy is not constitutional. As for there being different views of the constitution, this is also true. I have been basing my interpretation based off what the founding fathers believed. If my opponent thinks he can interpret the constitution better without the opinions/beliefs of the people who wrote it, I am willing to listen. But I doubt that it would be that convincing since the authors of the document usually understand better than other people who read it. As for my God given rights argument, I did not even mention that rights came from the Christian God specifically. That said, I was merely stating what the founders of the united States believed. They thought that rights came from a God and since their God (whoever it was. .. though many were Christian), and since they never condoned polygamy, it is fair to say that they didn't think that polygamy was a right endowed by a God. My opponent then says that not all people believe in God and seems to think this disproves my point. It doesn't. My point was about what the constitution writers believed and they never indicated that polygamy was a right endowed by God. I do not have to prove God's existence in order to show that. So my opinion on God's existence is irrelevant to this conversation. However, the founding fathers pinion on God's existence is quite important since God is where they thought rights came from (I just so happen to agree. ) As for the problem of hoarding, I would still argue that two spouses would still be hoarding. This might make the problem less of an issue but the problem still exists. So the solution might help, but the problem wouldn't even exist if polygamy was banned in the first place. Heart disease increases when there are multiple wives as my original source showed. Yes, it does increase 4-fold with 4 wives. It becomes less of an issue when the number of wives lessen. So my point remains valid. polygamy is not good for the health of a human. And it wouldn't matter if polygamous families were in the minority. The bad health affects would still be there and that is reason enough to be weary of polygamy. My opponent then says that it wouldn't matter if the founding fathers supported the practice or not. I disagree. The founding fathers made the constitution and therefore their interpretation of the document is better than any modern man's interpretation. They claim that polygamy would be protected as a religious practice, but again, they not all religious practices are allowed. So this argument needs more to it in order to show that this religious practice should be allowed. This practice already harms the health of humans. .. so why should this practice be allowed?