Looking for someone to argue AGAINST polygamy!

Thank you for keeping the debate going! Right away, I would like to discount your finger-pointing. A definition is a definition, I even used one I thought was most fair and in your favor. I posted two as a courtesy so we could refer to them. It was not an "unknown authority" fallacy. If that"s the case let me point out that the terms that I specifically asked you to identify, you have absolutely failed to do so. This means that, since you have not stated a definition other than what I responded to, I have refuted your entire thesis, other than "I am against legalizing polygamy in the United States." To that, at least, we both agree. Here are the statements which you have not clarified, and to which I have discounted. They make up your entire thesis. -""destroy the sanctity of marriage and the values of the society." -""likelihood that conflict occurs will increase if polygamy is allowed." ""there are no strong reasons as to why legalize polygamy." Secondly, I did not make a "Appeal to moon" or "weak analogy" statement. I was not "assuming" as you say, that polygamy will be legal because slavery was made illegal. I was using the changing views in interracial marriage and slavery to illustrate the concept that "societal values," of the kind you mentioned, are not set in stone. And you cannot make a statement relying on them being so, when they change constantly over time. My argument directly countered your statement -""destroy the sanctity of marriage and the values of the society," and I gave you a chance to clarify your thesis but you have not. Finally, let me make a note that slavery not acceptable to many human beings forced into slavery. So when you say it was acceptable at one point, that is overly generalized and relative. mar"riage noun \G2;mer-ij, G2;ma-rij\ : the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife : a similar relationship between people of the same sex : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other Full Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities http://www.merriam-webster.com... So now, you have changed your criteria I noticed. Instead of "strong" reasons, you have no demanded "urgent or deep reasons." Once again, you have not defined the criterion for these, and completely ignored my question about what "strong" means. So, reflecting on this, by saying you must have urgent or deep reasons to legalize something, are you implying that to legalize anything you must have urgent or deep reasons? I"m positive many things were legalized that were not what you"d generally believe to be urgent or deep reasons. Alcohol was legalized but I don"t believe any of the reasons were very deep or urgent. So why is polygamy receiving a special criteria by you to be legalized? Beyond that, I can think of scenarios that are urgent and deep relative to an individual to be a polygamist. Example, a man is threated with death unless within a month he marries into a polygamist relationship. He has urgent reasons, a time frame of a month. And deep reasons, he values his life. This scenario has agreed with both your criteria, and therefore is not refuted. Here we have another issue, "Second, the United States is a christian country, not muslim. The Christian's practice is monogamy." You have stated that the U.S. is a Christian country, and that the Christian"s practice is monogamy. There are 2-7 million Muslims in the United States, and mosques in most states. So it is easy to say that American citizens and immigrants are Muslims. The dominant religions in the U.S. are Christian, so one could argue it is a Christian nation, I won"t argue against it. However, Christians follow the Bible as the sole source of knowledge, (as well as possibly perceived divine guidance). In the Bible it not only gives several examples of good men practicing polygamy, it condones it. So the fact that polygamy is illegal in a nation, dominated as you say, by a religion who"s full text condones it is confusing. The state of polygamy in law would actually work to disprove what you"ve said about the U.S. being a Christian country CChristian na Christian country. Now, this brings us back to the societal values again. You"re stuck. Either societal values never change, in which case you"re wrong. Or societal values SHOULD never change, in which case you agree with polygamy. Otherwise I don"t see how you can say that polygamy ""destroys" the values of the society." Your paragraph about sanctity is convoluted. All I can make out is that you"re telling me I have a limited understanding of sanctity, which you failed to define. Here you are; sanc"ti"ty noun \G2;sa!1;(k)-tə-tē\ : the quality or state of being holy, very important, or valuable http://www.merriam-webster.com... So this definition relies on the definition of holy I see, which is; ho"ly adjective \G2;h!3;-lē\ : connected to a god or a religion : religious and morally good "used in phrases that show surprise or excitement http://www.merriam-webster.com... This definition does not specify which religion. And if the definition specified the Christian religion, from my sources proving that in the Bible it was condoned, polygamy would NOT be destroying the sanctity of marriage, as you said it would. That"s as clear-cut as can be. In regards to "Given that in marriage, other people cheat, there is no way that allowing polygamy would solve these problems," I NEVER stated that polygamy would solve these problems. I have only discounted your claim that more conflict would arise out of polygamous relationships. Furthermore, your statement is 100% assumption. You have given not a single source, definition, or argument that isn"t based off of opinion. I have refuted your entire thesis thus far and patiently wait for you to amend it. Given that defining expressions of love here would be an unnecessary tangent, I concede that marriage might not be the fullest expression of love. But this does not add to your argument at all. Almost any reasons other than love (family, security, money, sexual attraction) that people want to get married, can be applied to people wanting to get married in a polygamous way. So you have not argued against polygamy. Furthermore, the only motivation that I need for legalizing polygamy is that it is ethical, and some people may want it as an option. You have the responsibility of proving why it should NOT be legalized, and seeing as it is unconstitutional and unfair for people who prefer that relationship and cannot achieve it, it should be legalized. Your only reasons against this have been discounted. http://civilliberty.about.com... http://iraq.usembassy.gov... http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...