Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are just

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his response. However, it seems that a majority of his points are new arguments rather than the rebuttals that we had agreed on for round 3. I will, though, respond to them anyway even though the arguments provided by opponent ultimately shouldn"t be given much weight (due to their not meeting the criteria set for the round). I would also like to note, that my opponent offers no evidence for any of his arguments. [For the purposes of space, I have included only the first and last few words of some of my opponent's longer arguments; the full arguments can be seen in the previous round] 1-"[I]t"s glorified infidelity." This is not the case. Infidelity is described as "marital disloyalty; adultery."[1] Voluntary polygamous marriage (VPM) certainly does not meet the prior criterion; one partner is never being disloyal to a married partner by being with another married partner of the same marriage; it is the same marriage. The second criterion should probably be defined in its own right. Adultery is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse."[2] So, VPM also fails to meet the second criterion of infidelity because a partner would be having sex with someone who is his or her lawful spouse. 2-"It would be difficult for the government to tax." Taxation is already a difficult process, but I suppose my opponent is suggesting that VPM would make taxation even more difficult. I agree that this would likely be the case, but I would also point out that this is merely because it is currently a practice that is not recognized by the state. Marriage reform tends to necessitate tax reform. Introducing either interracial marriage or same-sex marriage into a system that criminalized and discriminated against them would likely force some kind of marriage-related tax reform. My opponent"s argument here can only be taken seriously if s/he also discourages interracial and same-sex marriage. 3-"Relationships should be between two people." This is entirely without grounding or warrant. To use an earlier example, it could be just as easy to say "relationships should be between two people of the same race" or "relationships should be between people of different sexes." Merely stating these things is not a good reason to criminalize interracial or same-sex marriage. 4-"Couples have to... there"s multiple people." Following my opponent"s logic here would yield disastrous results. For example, families also have to make decisions and compromises together. It is harder to agree when there are more people. Having children increases the number of people in a family. Therefore, people should not have children. Of course, if everybody did this, it would result in human extinction. 5-"Polygamous relationships can... is already overpopulated." Actually, because the female reproductive system can only create a single child at a time (discounting multiple births), any form of polygamy could not increase the population more than monogyny could (assuming a roughly equal proportion of men and women in the world). 6-"Polygamy is almost... being owned by men." Remember, this is VOLUNTARY polygamous marriage. If the woman"s act is not voluntary, then it is not relevant to this debate. 7-"Marriage is a... a cattle drive." A VPM can also be a partnership and a relationship; it is simply between more people. 8-"Polygamy skews the natural ratio of marriageable men and women." This is true. I fail to see how this is necessarily disadvantageous. 9-"Most people agree... to older men." Again, this is VOLUNTARY polygamous marriage. Joel Feinberg classifies the choice of a child as "substantially nonvoluntary."[3] I think many people would agree. 10-"Spouses can have... it creates tension." This is true. Marriage is difficult, but I fail to see how this justifies laws against VPM. 11-"The established needs... around the house." My opponent has offered no evidence to support this. Even if s/he had, it would not provide a convincing justification for laws against VPM. 12-"In all polygamous cultures, women have extremely low status." This seems unlikely, especially when you consider that there are societies in which polyandry is the predominant form of polygamy.[4] Even if this were the case, my opponent would also have to show that polygamy is the cause of this lower in each of these cultures for this argument to have much weight. 13-"True love is a bond that is only possible to be shared between two people." Even if this were the case, it is not a good justification for laws against VPM because "true love" is not a prerequisite for marriage. 14-"Most North American... or food stamps." That is unfortunate, but unless my opponent is suggesting that VPM is the cause of this, the argument does not hold much weight. If s/he is suggesting that VPM is the cause, then the argument seems to be guilty of a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. 15-"Polygamy is a choice, while sexual orientations are not choices." I agree. 16-"Legalizing polygamy would... on women"s rights." This is completely unwarranted; I could just as easily say "legalizing VPM would not give more power to religions and would not infringe on women"s rights." Also, in terms of women"s rights, I would also like to remind my opponent that the resolution deals with VOLUNTARY polygamous marriage and that a woman has just as much right to marry multiple men. 17-"Legal polygamy would... to such marriages." My opponent assumes that nations are obligated to grant citizenship to immigrants merely because they are married to a citizen of that nation. However, my opponent offered no reason for us to accept this assumption. Some final notes: I-While my opponent offered a larger number of arguments, a multitude of arguments should not be confused for acumen. II-Though I have argued against my opponent"s new arguments, s/he offered them in a round dedicated to rebuttals, and because of this, I was given far less opportunity to rebut them. III-My opponent did not refute my initial arguments. This is incredibly important because it means that my final syllogism, which firmly negates the resolution, stands. 1-Paternalism is either strong/hard or weak/soft (by definition) 2-Strong (or hard) legal paternalism is not just (by C1) 3-Laws against voluntary polygamous marriages are not weak/soft paternalism (by C2) 4-Therefore, laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are strong/hard paternalism (by disjunctive syllogism 1, 3) 5-Therefore, laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not just (by identity 2, 4) Also, any new arguments against this portion of my initial argument would be incredibly unfair to the spirit of this debate as I am now completing my final round and would be unable to respond to them. So, ultimately, my syllogism has been unrefuted and its ultimate conclusion that laws against voluntary polygamous marriage are not just must stand. Finally, I would like to thank my opponent for his or her participation in this debate. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] Feinberg, Joel. "Legal Paternalism." Seattle: U of Washington. Print. (Pg 8) [4] Miller, Alan S. and Satoshi Kanazawa. Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters. New York: Perigee, 2007. Print. (Pg. 81)