Polygamy ought to be legal in the United States.

*Burden Analysis * I've provided analysis of the political and legal philosophy of legal permissibility. Woodpecker responded with "the hassle of changing combined with the popular opposition to polygamy ought be enough to win me the debate". The hassle of changing an unjust law is never so great that it shouldn't be changed, and bandwagon fallacies have no place in this debate. Woodpecker doesn't engage with the philosophy I've provided, namely, that we should always defer to allowing an action unless there are compelling reasons not to. *Woodpecker's Case* 1. Woodpecker claims polygamy isn't an individual choice, so it doesn't matter. In the status quo, when a couple wants to marry because of religious convictions, we let them get married. Woodpecker himself has no particular insight into the driving forces behind the actions of these individuals, and this is revealed when he makes statements like, "no woman would ever intrinsically want to share a man with other women". Maybe Woodpecker wouldn't want to, or maybe Woodpecker can't understand why others would want to, but that doesn't mean women simply can't want to do so. In addition to all the problems with trying to determine why polygamists wish to marry, Woodpecker makes another fundamental mistake when he tries to paint religion as collective behavior, which, for some reason, Woodpecker cares less about. What is collective behavior but the sum of individual choices? Even if you buy that religion is indeed collective behavior, why does that make it less important than gender equality? When we look at other things that would be collective behaviors (at least according to Woodpecker's reasoning) we run into all kinds of issues. The example of stay-at-home parenting is particularly telling. He says that we should allow it because there is a "sound biological reason for stay-at-home mothering". The fact that such a staunch defender of gender equality would say things like "women are better at raising kids than men are" probably indicates that he doesn't really understand the issue of gender equality at all. But, even by his own standard, we should allow polygamy because there are "sound biological reasons" for it. From a purely biological standpoint, it is beneficial for men to mate with many females. In addition, it is beneficial for females to mate with the fittest and most fertile men, regardless of whether or not such a man is married. By Woodpecker's own reasoning, we ought to allow polygamy. Nevertheless, the "sound biological reason" standard is absurd; it doesn't recognize the importance of individual choice. Finally, all of the arguments relating to the "inherent oppressiveness" of polygamy were nonsense. Woodpecker tried to pick out three problems with polygamy, but none of them are inherent to polygamy itself. Woodpecker said that 1. sometimes women don't pick there husbands, 2. sometimes there is sexual abuse, and finally that 3. sometimes women are in traditional family roles. My response? 1 isn't wrong as long as women consent to the marriage, if they're not consenting it's illegal anyway, so the ban on polygamy is superfluous. 2. Is illegal, and already banned by law. In addition, it's not inherent in polygamy, as there is sexual abuse in regular relationships. 3. Is just fine, as long as women consent. In addition to all the above, a woman who didn't want to be in a relationship can always get a divorce, so any argumentation about the inherent oppressiveness of polygamy is a waste of time unless Woodpecker can identify some harm to the women that they 1. Didn't consent to, 2. Can't escape through divorce, and 3. Isn't already illegal as a result of other laws. 2. Third-party harms. Woodpecker completely dropped my "least-restrictive means" argument. Even if he wins that any of these harms actually exist, he has failed to show why existing (and non-discriminatory) laws can't solve. My opponent tries to sidestep this issue by saying that it is "ineffective" to try to deal with child abuse or other issues in these communities. Why does he believe this? Because polygamist societies are isolationist. I wonder why that is the case... maybe it's because we have outlawed their ENTIRE LIFESTYLE. Maybe if we, I don't know, stopped doing that, they'd have a better relationship with the government. Maybe then it would be easier to target the real issues within these communities, those of underage marriage and child abuse by using the specific laws relating to those crimes. Of course, Woodpecker believes that polygamy is solely responsible for these, and he seems to stake a lot of his offense on that idea. How then, does he explain the existence of these crimes in monogamous society? It is empirically the case that polygamy is NOT the root cause of these evils, and by that reasoning, as I have shown above, there must be a less-restrictive means to deal with these issues. I've even identified such a means. That alone makes any law banning polygamy unjust. *My case* 1. Consent I've already dealt with this issue a great deal above. The important issue at hand is not why they've consented, but that they have. If any choice made as a result of family pressure or religious conviction is a coerced decision that an individual is not responsible for, most monogamous marriages would also be invalid. FGM is a terrible analogy because babies can't consent to have their clitoris chopped off. What's really odd is Woodpecker's analogy of homosexual marriage. If homosexuality is the result of genetics, as Woodpecker claims, why shouldn't homosexual marriage be banned? It seems pretty clear that the biological composition of one's body is probably equally (if not more) coercive than either family or religious convictions. 2. Reduced Abuse Woodpecker admits that if legalization of polygamy improves relations with polygamist communities it would actually reduce abuse. He claims that improved relations are unlikely because "group like the FDLS tend to be incredibly paranoid in their dealings with the outside world". Again, the reason for this is because the outside world has made their lifestyle illegal. For example, if we banned communion, Catholics would probably not have the best relations with the US government. On top of that analysis, as I have already demonstrated, polygamy itself is not inherently abusive. There is perhaps a correlation between polygamy and abuse in the status quo, but that only because polygamist communities are entirely separated from the law or child services. If polygamists didn't fear social services because of the oppressive laws banning polygamy, it seems obvious that there would be an increase in reporting of all crimes, not just abuse, within polygamist communities. 3. Marriage Rights Woodpecker loses the round when he says "the unfortunate oppression of this small group of people who practice polyamoury without these harms is a harm I'm willing to eat". Why should we as a society have to eat this harm, when we can solve abuse with existing laws? Woodpecker's ultimate philosophy is that it is ok to abuse the rights of the few, to achieve a preferable end, EVEN IF the same end could be achieved without those rights violations. This is not only a claim that the ends justify he means, this is a claim that the ends justify morally inferior means when there are superior means available. That is totally absurd. Here is a harm I'm willing to bite: Inefficiency. Maybe it is the case that using existing laws to go after abusers is a bit harder than jailing every polygamist (including the women that Woodpecker wants to protect). Even if that is the case, we ought to still protect individual rights over government efficiency. It might be more efficient to jail every Muslim in our country than to try to identify terrorists. Keep that in mind while you vote. Zabcheckmate Thanks, Woodpecker, for a good debate. Good luck on the H&P final tomorrow as well.