Polygamous Marriages

Even though I dropped everything, I'd like to inform the voter that my opponent is manipulating when he says: This means that not only on a theoretical level I'm justifying polygamy by showing that marriage is about love. Never did I oppose that marriage is about love, never did I question whether three people can love each other all at once. I questioned the practicality of such a marriage, and I provided lots of problems that would occur, to which my opponent mostly answered 'the spouses could have a talk what would happen in such cases'. I tried to argument for the fact that this IS what marriage is - marriage is the practical thing between a man and a woman, so that they don't have to deal with paperwork in the future, it is all there in one piece of paper, and that is how I said from the beginning - Practical! I think I have provided very reasonable questions as to what good a marriage between three does, why is it necessary, and I think it raises the question whether it would some situations like divorce, death, etc. much more IMPRACTICAL than they already are. I failed to see how this could go on without my opponent going on how 'we could work it out' - yes we could work it out, however that was not my point at all. My point was, that marriage is there for a practical reason. Concessions did never occur, even though my opponent seems to think so. 1. No, never did I ask my opponent to justify a polygamous marriage. If you have been following this debate it has been strictly about the legal matter of such a concept. So I do not think my opponent is free from answering my question at all. 2. Dangerous assumption maybe, but like I said polygamy is not at all a new concept, and I base my opinion on history. Pro says ... All the women out there who go absolutely nuts over him and say that they won't marry any other person other than him. The moment he got married, their potential marriage pools went from one person to zero people, meaning that there's already a lot of guys who aren't getting wives. I hope the voters read this carefully to see actually how ridiculous it is. There is unlikely a woman on earth with access to the internet or a television who hasn't had a celebrity crush, most of these are probably already married. I would like to meet the woman who dedicated herself so much to George Clooney that she stayed single for him, I would bet a ton of money on that if this woman exist she is the only one. Pro says ... There's no reason to believe that a polygamous family can not all equally love one another so that it doesn't devolve into this kind of situation. There might not be a reason for it, however these complicated situations rarely need rational reasons to occur. We see it My opponent then says that my study is outdated, saying half a millennia changes a lot of things - I would like to inform my opponent that half a millennia is 500 years, these studies are half a century old. However that doesn't really change my opponent's point. The study says the following: "Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny," Polygamous marriages are illegal in all developed countries, so to study these types of marriages their only alternative was polygamy in Islamic countries which would have been an entirely useless study. My opponent says these studies still useless because; "There's far more access to resources and wealth in today's society than existed within the 50s and 60s. With more people having more things, there's less reason for people to fight among one another." I do not agree with this. Here is a view of the crime rate in the states dating from 1960 to 2013: http://www.disastercenter.com... If you look at the numbers, even though the population in the states hasn't doubled since 1960, the crime rate has TRIPLED. I think this proves that even though there might be less reason for people to fight among one another, this is hardly the case. More things just means there is more to fight for.