Polygamy should be legal in the United States

Rebuttal 1SocietyI have explained this multiple times and will not stay on this very long. I have explained how and why a society plays a role within the legalization of things. If a society who is less cultured, wanted to implement issues that we do not agree with, we can not claim they are "wrong". The issue is these societies are not as rational and as advanced as we have become.We have the ability to reason, rationalize, and consider what is harmful and what is not harmful. It is not a majority rules situation = what is right but hinged on the fact that we can rationally gauge what is harmful. Trying to rationalize how murder or rape would be acceptable in the US is illogical, because we are already aware that it is wrong and have implemented practices to punish those who commit these acts. The only way it could or would be rational, is the people in the nation were not exposed to the level of rationally which we already possess, or the rationality which we now possess were to be eliminated all together. Rebuttal 2Taxation My adversary claims that loopholes can be fixed and does not address my contention at all. I have explained the issues surrounding it, and simply claiming they can be fixed is not a sufficient cause. When you are seeking to eliminate a practice that is objectively accepted , you must offer up a solution as to how and why it is logical to change it. Basically he has to present a solution to the issue at how, and demonstrate how this could work better than the current system. If not show how it could work better, he must at least provide a way that it could replace the current system. He has failed to do so. He simply states "Con says it is not possible to split houses by fractions. But it is possible."Again he has offered no solution as to how this could happen, he just says it can be done. I have shown the issues with trying to divide returns among multiple families. It is almost impossible because it takes into consideration to many variables. See my contention in the last round as to why. Rebuttal 3"Con says there is a difference between saying we can fix it and actually being able to put a system in place to make it work. Yes, this is true. The debate is over "Polygamy should be legal in the United States" NOT "Polygamy should be legal in the United States under any and all plans put forth to make it reality".This is a horrible argument from the start. When you are claiming something should be legal, you have to seek to change the norm and bring forth standards and arguments as to how and why it should be implemented. Again saying it should be legal just because you believe it should be legal while ignoring all the legal and social ramifications is not valid. Rebuttal 4"People can make what ever agreements they want within reason""and yet con is the one who played with the definitions by equating "commitment"This was a statement and ignored everything I stated about the foundations on which marriage was implemented and how it is currently viewed. See previous rounds. He poorly tries to show how someone can change the word commitment to define what they want. I did claim that marriage in commitment and is perceived based on the foundation, and commitment in a job would be perceived differently. This again does not give someone the right to perceive commitment differently when the foundations in which in which something was founded under has been and continues to be an objective fact. That definition is directly relevant to that situation and must consider the history and everything around it. Just as how we perceive commitment with a job using the same methods. If someone wants to change the word commitment to what they will, it is their right. Taking that however and applying it to what something was objectively founded on, and trying to reinterpret it is not correct however. With that logic we could interpret the constitution in any way we wished. We could define rights and freedom by multiple meanings. This play at semantics failed horribly. Rebuttal 5Visitation RightsOkay he clearly stated what he wanted answered this time and again lost me a little bit. There is a set number of people whom can be in a room at a time regardless of whether they are family or not. Having a few family members who have passed recently, I am aware of this. They will never allow a certain amount of people back into a room during critical situations even if they are family members. This is true in cases where they are in ICU. As far as regular visitation rights, anyone can generally go to see someone. Even in normal situations that would just be strictly related to room capacity and not whether someone is a member of the family or not. I have no idea how polygamy would effect or play a part in this at all, because the same rules would still apply even if someone were a polygamist and brought an entire family in. In ClosingI have shown multiple reasons as to why polygamy should not be allowed in the context of marriage. If someone wants to have a mistress, that is their right. I however have provided logical and rational reasons as to why we should not legally marry more than one person. Con responds with remarks like "It can work" or "we can find a way to fix it", but offers up no reason as to why we should change or how we could change the norm. Thus his resolution was not met.