polygamous marriage is more meritorious than gay marriage, and if we allow gay we should polygamous

humans are the type where it seems the males care for their young at least for awhile. this is something that occurs in nature too. the males don't stick to one partner in nature, have multiple kids with multiple partners... why should they act differently in marriage? con argues that the natural state isn't about long term marriage but jumping around from sex partners. really, though, traditional marriage itself as an institution doesn't reflect the natural state in that males and females don't stay together forever in the natural world. if it's artificial but accepted for solo couples, there's no reason it can't be for multiple couples. First off, yes, in fact it does reflect the natural state. Birds are highly monogamous(1). However, even if this was not the case, what my opponent is claiming is purely a naturalistic fallacy(2). What is done in nature, doesn't necessarily mean that we ought to do it in human society. Secondly, my opponent never actually responded to my argument that this is only jumping around from sex partners. I would like a response to that argument. and even if it's harder for a male to care for multiple families... it's not impossible. in fact, if a guy has a kid with four women... it's not much different than having four kids with one woman. one might say tehre's less of a support system.. but there could just as easily be more of a support system with many partners cooperating together. I never said it was impossible, and my opponent has ignored the probable scenario involving divorces. If two of your wives divorced you, and you have to pay alimony and child support to both those wives, and you have another wife at home, is it the same as having a single wife divorce you with 4 kids? Clearly not. and this is more about ensuring that the male and female are capable of tending to many instead of a blanket ban on any polygamous marraige. it's nto fair to bill gates that he can't have many marriages and kids if he wants to, as he can support it. First off, nothing prevents bill from having more children with his current wife. Mormons are a great example, in which, even when they live a monogamous relationship, they still have dozens of children. Secondly, with this argument, my opponent has switched the point of marriage not from sex or relationships, but rather, to power. A rich man who can afford more women, would have more wives. A poor man who could not afford more wives, would have less. This demeans and lowers women, bringing back bronze age belief systems regarding how the rich and powerful covet and horde more women. in nature, females always have different mates at different points in their life. i don't know why con insists that it's always male with multiple females. and even if it's bias to favoring males having multiple partners... there's no reason we can't mirror something more equal handed in the marriage we create. if the female wants few partners, that's her call... if she wants more as they usually do at some point in their life... that's their call too. My opponent keeps bringing up nature, but ignores the fact that most instances in nature that practice polygamy are polygynous. In nature, it is the alpha male that hordes most of the females, and females cannot have multiple male partners because a female requires more investment in rearing and producing children.(4) This also ignores our understanding of current psychology and societies that exist today. Currently, polygyny is the most common with 83% of people practising it worldwide, whereas polyandry is the least common, with only 0.47%(5). as to all the legal points... sure, tehre's some technical points that will need addressed. but there's nothing that would necessariy prohibit the possiblity of polygamous marriage, just a preference to not have to deal with it from con and those who argue that stuff. if there's issues to address, we address them. If by "Necessarily", my opponent is referring to the fact that we could not uphold the rights and equality of all partners in the relationship, then yes. Is Pro suggesting that equality and rights are simply mere "preferences"? Also, yes, I would like Pro to address the problem regarding equality and rights that I presented. So please, pro, address them. Now, I shall add an argument of my own. Monogamy has shown to reduce social problems over polygamy. Polygamy has been shown to produce more problems such as crime, due to the fact that there are less women to marry, and therefore more single men, who take more risks since they have no investment in their family. The studies have shown that monogamy reduces rape, murder, robbery and assault(6)(7) as well as a myriad of other social problems. Lastly, someone in the comments asked for this, so I shall deliver. Here is a source for how polygamy produces unstable relationships due to multiple partnerships.(3) Sources: 1. http://www.stanford.edu... 2. http://courses.csusm.edu... 3. http://www.jstor.org... 4. http://www.stanford.edu... 5. http://www.psychologytoday.com... 6. http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca... 7. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...