Intermediate Debate Competition R2: State Legislatures should decriminalize Polygamy

Thanks to my opponent for his argument - let's jump right in: "Polygamous communities... are not likely to report abuses that might result in legal action against the whole community." This argument essentially reasons that an act should be decriminalized in order so that the participants can report other crimes without fear of being punished for their own. This argument only holds legitimacy once we have established that the act in question doesn't deserve punishment. Illegal immigrants face a similar problem, where exposure could lead to deportation, but that isn't reason in itself to give them citizenship. Alone, this argument has no impact, unless Pro can prove that polygamy shouldn't be illegal in the first place. This can be applied to Pro's legitimacy argument as well. Before assisting children and immigrants in defining a legal status, we must first establish that polygamy ought to be legal. The sex-offender registry probably does little to benefit sex-offenders, but we all can agree that their actions are deserving of the consequences. This argument too, carries no weight until we can ascertain what the status of polygamists ought to be. It's also important to keep in mind that though these people may be law-abiding in other respects, they are still doing something that is illegal. Anyone that is currently married to more than one spouse has done so knowing they are committing a crime. No matter how law-abiding they may be in other areas, their actions imply clear criminal intent. Which brings us to Pro's next argument: "Polygamy laws violate first amendment guarantees." With a closer look, I think we'll find that they don't. The first amendment doesn't protect all religious expression. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson made a distinction between religious belief and actions that were a product of religious belief. He wrote that, '...the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions..." (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...) This statement was used in the case Reynolds v. United States, to support that though the court could not legislate over opinion, its ruling could reach to 'actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.' (http://law2.umkc.edu...) The reasoning behind this is clear. The claim of religious freedom shouldn't give a person license to commit crimes, for example, using it to justify human sacrifice. "[W]e do not deny Americans the right to any practice based on popular appeal. We don't criminalize an act simply because it might lead to an unfair balance of power." It seems Pro has turned my argument concerning the intrinsic inequality of polygamous marriages into an argument based on popular appeal. It was not my intention to say that polygamous marriage is unappealing to the majority, but to show that it is an essentially an institution of inequality. I provided examples in the previous round demonstrating the many aspects of inequality that exist fundamentally within such a structure. And while not being unreasonable, we do provide limitations to prevent an unfair balance of power. Such is the case for placing term limits on presidents. "...what marriage is ever equal? Few couples are satisfied with the intrinsic balance of household income or labor or sex." On the contrary, I believe this adds support to my own argument. For those that actually choose to get married (as opposed to cohabitation), we know that the likelihood of divorce can be from 40%-50%. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) With numbers that high, trying to jam more people into an already unstable structure can only hinder it. "Arguments for the denial of rights based on the size of the minority are not compelling." I was not suggesting the denial of rights based on small numbers, rather, once again, demonstrating the inequality inherent within polygamy. The fact that women with multiple husbands make up only .47% of marriages, while men with multiple wives make up approximately 83%, shows an inconsistency within polygamy. It is an inconsistency that favors a male-dominant society, where women will be placed in a position of inequality due to the structure such an institute naturally holds. When the right to equality begins to encompass the right to inequality, we know there's a problem. In Mormonism, a religion that is known to enshrine polygamy in its belief system, polygamy is limited to a man marrying multiple wives. This shows once again that even if, in theory, the legalization of polygamy would provide 'equal' benefits, in practice, it would not. Those same Mormon women would not have the opportunity to marry multiple men (should they want to), because it is forbidden by their religion. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) "Just as states need to stop caring about gay love or polyamorous love, states need to stop worrying even when two brothers wish to marry one woman." Though there are certainly similarities between the case for gay marriage, polyamorous marriage, and inter-related marriages (I wasn't sure if Pro was referring to incest here or not), I feel that each one has to also be discussed on a separate level. As this is a debate concerning the legalization of polygamy, (and character spaces are already limited) I will not get into the incest argument here. It should suffice to say, however, that those concerned about incest (which is illegal) because they are illegally practicing polygamy, don't have cause for complaint. "The most important factor impacting the health and well-being of existing polygamist groups in the US is their fear of prosecution... there's nothing intrinsic to polygamy that demands academic weakness or low self-esteem. These are symptoms common to the poverty of isolation and exploitation, not the necessary result of plural marriage." Pro states all of the above, suggesting the study results are because polygamy is illegal, but brings no sources to back it up. The link I provided in the previous round also cites studies involving people in polygamous relationships who live in countries where polygamy is legal, indicating that fear of prosecution isn't the only impacting factor. "The numbers of families... in polygamist marriages is going to be a very small minority. Small enough... to prevent widespread shifts in the number of available partners. The legalization of gay marriages has... impact on the availability of mating partners, but nobody still makes the argument that gay people must be required to make themselves available for heterosexual procreation. " Firstly, pointing out that because the same issue hasn't been brought up in regards to another system doesn't negate the issue. Secondly, let's bring the scale down somewhat to see what type of impact polygamy might have on the availability of partners. Let's say we have 10 men and 10 women. Now, one of those men marries four women. That leaves six women and nine men, leaving three men, 30% of that group partner-less. "Does the state have some obligation to redistribute population so that every woman gets her fair shot at a man or vice versa?" I think the major difference here is that though it is legal for citizens to travel to other states, marrying another person's spouse is not. This wasn't so much an argument involving the obligations of the government, just showing a broader picture of what polygamy could mean. "...substantial population increase is no longer an important... benefit... so governments should feel less concern regarding citizen mating habits and baby-making." It's interesting to note that among the reasons for practicing polygamy are 'it allows men to have more children'. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Looking forward to Pro's response!