People should be legally permitted to marry more than one person, in secular society.

In a literal sense yes everyone has a right to free speech but that does not make things like racism morally right. Transferring this over to group marriage, it can be argued that the government has no basis for marriage desires but there must be a line drawn. Nobody would argue against the government banning men to marry underage girls for example so where do we draw the line? The government is the only group who can allow/permit such marriage desires so they need to intervene when this line is crossed. I feel group marriages does cross the line and I have shown why through my points in the previous round which you have sadly tried to rebuke with a few words. However we will get to that soon. The government need to intervene when morality is at sake and in more particular, marriage morality or else horrific cases of marriage could surface. "I feel it can and does violate rights and morality". I will address this now by resenting real life scenarios. Group marriage harms men Leaves some men with no women to marry: "Other things being equal (and, to a good first approximation, they are), when one man marries two women, some other man marries no woman. When one man marries three women, two other men don't marry. When one man marries four women, three other men don't marry. " Source: (. http://reason.com......) harms Women Jealousy and competition between women, Real life cases: 1. "Likewise, she is forced now to compete for his affections for the rest of her life, thereby immersing in her an unnatural competition for the man who has already pledged himself to her. " Source: (. http://www.huffingtonpost.com......) 2. "His biggest headache, he said, stems from jealousy among the wives, the first of whom he married out of love. 'My rule is to behave equally toward all of my wives,' he said. 'But the first wife was very, very jealous when the second wife came. When the third arrived, the first two created an alliance against her. So I have to be a good diplomat. '" Source: (. http://www.nytimes.com......) 3. "There was tremendous competition between the wives, wasn't there? Oh, tremendous. We were all required to live in the same home, and there's just a lot of dominance that goes on about who has the right to rule. And, of course, the woman who has the most favor with her husband is going to rule over the other wives and their kids. " Source: . http://content.time.com...... harms children Polygamous fathers for example can't give their children adequate attention, Real life case: "He also has trouble keeping track of his children. He recently saw two boys fighting in the street and told them they would bring shame on their families. 'Do you not recognize me? ' one replied. 'I am your son. '" Source: (. http://www.nytimes.com......) harms families Polygamous families are complicated and unstable "Polyamory is a cover-all term for a bewildering variety of relationship forms--everything from open marriage, to bisexual triads, to a man with multiple women, to a woman with multiple men, to large sexual groups, and many more. The "rules" governing these arrangements are entirely flexible. There might be three "primary" partners who actually live together, and several additional "secondary" partners (collectively shared or not) to whom the three "primaries" are less committed. The levels of commitment, and the range of partnership and mutual involvement, are subject to continual change and renegotiation. Open and honest communication is the only rule. Polyamorists emphasize that multi partner unions take intense and constant work. Yet this need for a higher level of monitoring and negotiation only highlights the forces pushing against stability. " Source: Stanley Kurtz. "Polygamy Versus Democracy. You can't have both. " The Weekly Standard. June 5th, 2006 You can argue that these are merely examples but they are examples based on the real-life negative effects from permitting group marriage. And might I add, you have not shown any benefits or reasons for group marriage to be permitted. The "why not" argument is not making a firm case for your stance. If that was true then I could have just said, "why should it? ". Your previous argument was that, and I quote: "such relations are natural and found in nature, and Homo Sapiens are also part of Nature, so denying polygamy is denying Nature. " I merely said that under this logic where can we draw the line. The example of a man marrying an underage girl 100% fits in to your nature argument here so does that mean that any type of human marriage should be allowed? No matter how vile or apparently immoral it's okay as long as it fits in to nature? Now I'm very disappointed that you merely used a few words to try and counteract my points. It comes off as lazy and rude I'm afraid to say. For example how am I meant to rebuke a few words? You have not explained your rebuttal properly therefore I have nothing to go on. I feel as a result my points still stand. With this I end my round.