Polygamy should be legalized in the United States.

You should have cited sources for your initial quotes (i.e. http://prntscr.com...) , since I doubt you have those quotes memorized. Voters should consider whether or not to dock points from you for this, since I explicitly said “cite sources”as a rule. I did not specifically state what should be cited (i.e. quotes) though, which I should have done. If I had been more specific, the voters would not even have a choice since it certainly would have been against the rules.Overall, good debate so far though.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------“...the Constitution doesn't directly mention the issue of marriage.” (Con)-It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t. For instance, just because the constitution “doesn’t directly mention” satanism, doesn’t mean people can’t worship satanism. People can worship satan because it is arguably condoned by the 1st amendment right: freedom of worship.-You’re overlooking something very important. There are different views for how the constitution should be interpreted. One view is known as “originalism”, where the constitution is essentially based off of the founding father’s opinions and beliefs. Certainly, this must be the interpretation you are adhering to. There are several other ways of interpretations for the constitution though, implying that you cannot simply determine your view is right, since it's still a debatable issue for how to interpret it.“If they do not believe that it is a right endowed by a God then all they have is their opinion on the matter.” (Con)-What are you trying to argue??? Divine command theory? Hypothetically, what if God told you today that he changed his mind about the ten commandments. What if he said, “thou shalt kill” or “thou shalt steal”? Would you begin to think these are morally justifiable acts just because God told you to do it? Even if I have only an “opinion”, an “opinion” can certainly be justified through reasoning. You likely believe God exist and that he created the universe. You may say otherwise, but the concept of God existing is arguably an opinion and not a fact. It can’t be proven scientifically (yet), so it remains an opinion. My point: all you have is an opinion on the matter as well. It makes no difference.“So from a historical/constitutional standpoint, the United States has no reason to legalize polygamy.” (Con)-From a constitutional standpoint, there certainly could be reasons to legalize polygamy. As I said, there are different views for how to interpret the constitution. I would consider my view as “modernist”, basically meaning that I believe it's important to think about the implications on modern society and that the constitution should be interpreted in a modern context.“...how can my opponent possibly justify this practice as moral?” (Con)-As I said earlier, legalizing polygamy would arguably lessen divorce and adultery rates. There would also be stronger family units. I will go much further though in countering your points, in my next argument.“Well, polygamy does cause problems. It “causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older, wealthy men who have hoarded all the women”.” (Con)-You’re right. Hoarding would cause problems. However, isn’t there a simple solution to this? There certainly is one that arguably would be plausible. Solution: The law could limit the amount of wives to a number of two wives per husband and two husbands per wife. -Technically, this would still constitute as polygamy since it would adhere to the definition I have provided for this debate (i.e. "the state or practice of being married to more than one person at the same time"). -This solution would certainly mitigate some of the other problems too, such as the increased risk in heart disease that you had discussed. “...increases the risk of heart disease by more than 4-fold" (Con)-That statistic only applies to men with 4 wives according to your source. Men with 2 wives have significantly less of a risk of all three vascular diseases, based on this chart: http://prntscr.com... (Thats a chart I found from a source you provided by the way, but I still made sure to cite it down below for my own sake). -The difference in rates of disease between individuals who have 1 spouse and individuals who have 2 spouses really is negligible, considering also that polygamous families will most likely be in the minority. Even though there would be less spouses that one could have, it would still arguably provide flexibility and stronger family units in marriages than monogamous families, as addressed earlier.-----------------“And if they can't say that the founding fathers supported polygamy…” (Con)-As I said earlier, doesn’t matter since there are different interpretations for the constitution itself that Americans have. “...or if they can't prove that the constitution supported it,” (Con)-I’ve already explained how the constitution can uphold polygamy, and that is by denoting polygamy as another religious practice just as monogamy is a religious practice in religions like Christianity.“...or if they can't prove that the practice is moral,” (Con)-I’m certain that I’ve made arguments for polygamy to the extent that downsides, such as higher rates of disease and surpluses of bachelors, should be negligible. -----------------In summation, why should polygamy be legalized?-1st amendment rights: freedom of worship; religious practices.-Stronger family units: economical ; lessens the burden of child-rearing.-Less rates of divorce and adultery.-More flexibility of choosing partners.Bottom line: Polygamy should be legalized.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources: http://www.usconstitution.net...https://www.escardio.org...