Polygamy should be legalized in the West

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Numerical superiority of females over males: Con writes: "You're making it seem like EVERY man in X Western country has one wife already. This is simply not the case. In America marriage rates are falling [1]. " My response: Con still seems to be missing the point to my first argument. It really doesn't matter how many men in X Western country currently have a wife or not, the raw statistics I have provided clearly show that it is impossible for every woman to find a husband, period. To clarify on my point, if there are currently 20million women and 18million men living in USA, it doesn't matter how many of those men are married, the reality is there will always be at least 2 million women left over. Therefore, unless polygamy is legalized, at least 2 million women are without a partner. Con also writes: "To assert that what you're claiming, that women are going unmarried because of lack of available men, you need to show with evidence that this is the case. You have not done this and instead are backing this point with only a hypothetical scenario where there all men are married and women can't find husbands. " My response: Whether women are actually having trouble finding husbands or not, the raw statistics is proof for my case. In life, we must consider all scenarios. If women are not having trouble finding husbands at the moment despite what the statistics show, then good, I'm happy there is no trouble. However, if women are having trouble finding husbands due to women's numerical superiority, which is what the factual statistics is suggesting, then clearly we have the problems I have listed in my first argument (i. e. right to marry). The point here is, if Polygamy is legalized, we are safe under all scenarios. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Males are naturally polygamous: Con writes: "Again, sex has nothing at all to do with the legal concept of marriage. Currently marriage is not about biology per se. It is about granting legal protections to individuals who enter into binding contracts with the government. Saying that men are naturally polygamous and should therefore be allowed to enter into contracts with multiple individuals does not support your notion. " My response: As I said in my previous defense, this argument has nothing to do with the legal concept of marriage. Rather, it is to prove that Nature has intended for Polygamy to exist and to be practiced and therefore it should be legalized. When it comes to practices like Polygamy, Prostitution, or Gay Marriage, there is the legal aspect of it, i. e. the laws governing the practices, but there is also the Nature aspect of it, i. e. Is it natural? Is it right? My second argument about man being Naturally polygamous is not meant to justify the legal aspect of Polygamy, rather it is meant to justify the latter aspect of Polygamy - the nature of Polygamy. Why is this important? For one thing, we like to legalize things that are considered to be naturally right than wrong. For example, many people think Prostitution or Gay Marriage is naturally wrong, which has made these two practices so tough to legalize over the years. Polygamy does not face this enormous problem, it is justified by Nature, thus it should exist by becoming legalized. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Polygamy being a successful practice: Con writes: "Here is where my opponent's point falls apart. Legal marriage in Islam/Islamic countries is significantly different than it is in America/Western culture. " Con also writes: "Trying to make sense of these legal niceties would be extremely difficult and time-consuming to say the least. " My response: First of all, my point does not fall apart simply because of some theoretical problems that could occur if polygamy was to be legalized in the West. Secondly, I never said we must practice polygamy in the West with the same set of parameters surrounding the practice in the East. All I am arguing for is for the fundamental practice of polygamy to exist in the West (Debate: Polygamy should be legalized in the West). All the legal concepts that are required to make Polygamy a fair and sustainable practice in the West can be worked on by legislators before the bill is actually passed and implemented in Western society. Isn't that how all proposed bills turn into laws today? Through numerous hours of revising and editing until it's compatible with our values and the existing law? Sure the editing may be a time-consuming and difficult process but that's what legislators are paid to do. Let me state, no bill is perfect from the start, the bill for polygamy won't be perfect from the start, but that does not mean it cannot exist or to be made better. Moreover, aside from all the legal stuff, my point under this argument is also to show that females find success in the most basic and fundamental concept of polygamy: sharing a man with another woman. Pointing out the legal concepts is completely irrelevant in that sense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of mankind: Con writes: Okay. .. so you sourced the information. You didn't address or counter the point that this entire contention is an appeal to tradition. the logical fallacy that means "it does not follow that what was once done should be done now. " [4] My response: My reason for pointing out this fact is for Con and voters to understand that Polygamy is not a barbarian practice as many people may believe that it is. It was and still is practiced by many civilized societies. This supports my overall stance on the issue in a subtle but important way: It helps to cancel out the initial prejudice many people may have held against this practice, which could have clouded their better judgement. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Religion does not really forbid Polygamy: Con writes: I addressed why polygamy is not really feasible above. I believe the explanation applies to this contention. My response: I believe I have made it quite clear as to how religion directly has an impact on our laws through establishing society's values and morals. Since Con still does not see the connection, I leave it to voters to judge the merit of this argument.