ETHICS of Polygamy

First of all, the limitations presented by the affirmation on the term "ethics" deteriorate negative ground to the point of being abusive (in that arguments are restricted to those that, technically, don't exist). Consider ethics: they are systems of behaviors determined right or wrong. How are those systems built? How is right and wrong decided? For now, unless the affirmation would like to challenge this, I assert that ethics are built by societal temperament, whether that be a majority religious doctrine or some other environmental stimulus. Society's acceptance of given behaviors as right or wrong is at the heart of this debate. However, I will strive not to present the usual argument to this effect. I do wish, however, to make it clear that society and its collective wishes are at the heart of this debate. Not only that, but in a legitimate state, society's wishes and moral code are what translate directly into law. Even in illegitimate states, religious beliefs and ideologies, as well as the ideologies of dictators or tyrants, are at the core of law. So, to say that an ethical or legal issue has no relationship to society or at least powerful individuals is also false. The laws that govern a state are formed from something—we don't just decide that murder is bad one day for no reason. Something is responsible for that thought, whether it be divination or our need to survive as a species. But, the bottom line is that it started with people affirming those laws, with societies affirming those laws. Now, consider polygamy and its lack of popularity around the globe. We can break it down, for ease, by some major religions. Hinduism is neutral textually, but has few if any polygamists. Judaism & Christianity forbid it. Islam is highly diverse: some sects practice polygamy while many others forbid it. Even the few societies which allow polygamy don't have many takers. Considering the majority temperament of societies to polygamy and the religious ethics systems described above, it can be easily concluded that polygamy is not ethically favored. Those who do practice polygamy can simply be compared to any instance of committing an unethical act. Murder is still committed, but we don't use that as grounds to further the practice of murder as an ethical act. Second of all, the definition of "polygamy" is highly flawed. Funnily enough, the affirmation attempts to side step a historically catastrophic and implacable human construct by simply defining polygamy as "the right to marry any number of consenting, age-appropriate persons of any gender." As if this definition can side step the long and extremely oppressive patriarchy that has snaked its way into every nook and cranny of almost every culture on the planet. Part of any valid debate is the introduction of the empirical world. While philosophy is a valid and wonderful way to exercise the mind and posit about the world we live in and the world we could have, it means nothing without the consideration of its application. At the end of the day, we cannot deny some of history's strongest trends. Male dominance of females is one that is ever-present, and in most animal species. It is, I claim, unavoidable, as is evidenced clearly. I don't have enough space in 4,000 characters to document its sordid past. To say that polygamy will be able to escape its dominant form is an impossible promise to keep. It would require the upheaval of nearly every society in the world, save the less than half a dozen that practice polyandry (which generally consists of a few nomadic Tibetans). By saying that polygamy is ethical and attempting to characterize it as something that can ever be anything but male-centric is to deny reality. And, since polygamy can never escape its role in the patriarchy, it becomes unethical as it oppresses millions of women around the world who don't choose the polygamist lifestyle, but whose husbands are enabled by labeling it as "ethical."