Polygamy ought to be legal in the United States.

Burdens Look, if neither of us gives any persuasive arguments as to why polygamy should or should not be banned, the fact that the US is a democratic society and there is massive popular opposition here to polygamy means that I win the round. Popular opinion is obviously meaningless when it favors a major rights violation, but if the competing rights claims come out a wash, this wins me the round. Nevertheless, I am also very clearly winning the rights debate. Con Case 1. Individual choice is a foundational principle of society, but polygamy should not be perceived as an individual choice. Pro has conceded that we're actually talking about polygyny in this round. Now, we all recognize that no woman would ever intrinsically want to share a man with other women. Unlike homosexuality, there is no genetic predisposition to polygamy. Therefore, it is clear that the motivation for engaging in polygamous behavior is external, and specifically religious. Thus polygamy ought be viewed as a component of religious behavior, not as a basic individual choice. I realize this is nit-picky, but it's an important distinction. Basic individual choice is probably what is most fundamental to Western liberal society. However, religion, though important, is a collective behavior, based on a number of external factors. As such, it ought be viewed as less vital than gender equality. Being a man or woman is a more fundamental state than being a Mormon or Jew. Moreover, Mormonism as a whole is still totally possible without polygamy. It is just one specific practice that is illegal. Notice that Zab does not contest whether polygyny is inherently oppressive, only whether this is more important than a specific religious ritual. Zab also argues that stay-at-home mothering is oppressive, so I should also favor banning it. Though traditional gender roles are slightly oppressive they are not oppressive on a level that warrants interfering with lifestyle choices. Polygamy clearly is. The difference? There is a very sound biological reason for stay-at-home mothering: fathers do not bear milk, and are in general less biologically geared towards child-rearing. There is absolutely no biological motivation for polygamy. Notice that Zab dropped all of my analysis under this point both about the inherent oppressiveness of polygyny, and about the specific oppressiveness of it as practiced by the FDLS. This alone should lose him the debate. The government is totally justified in banning a single, obscure religious practice that is harmful to and oppressive of women. Liberal society cannot function without gender equality, it's a necessary prerequisite. Polygamy very clearly is not. In terms of competing rights claims, you must vote for Con. 2. Third-party harms All of Zeb's response hinges on the idea that polygamy is not directly responsible for the harms I've outlined. However, he ignored most of my analysis as to why it is. Three points. a. Polygyny necessarily leads to the marriage of under-aged women because it dramatically increases the demand for marriageable women, to the point where young men are often forced entirely out of these societies so as to limit competition. We got no response to this whatsoever. b. Polygyny leads to the abuse and neglect of children because fathers who are rarely in contact with their children are much less emotionally attached to them. Moreover, feeding fifty mouths is much more difficult than feeding five. c. Yes, the government could try to carefully regulate against all these harms. However, this is absurdly ineffective. Polygamous societies tend to be quite isolationist, due to their exceptional religiosity. Internal reporting of under-aged marriage or child abuse requires an individual to go against this closed society. Targeting the entire society is a much more effective form of regulation. It allows the government to prosecute those who practice polygamy, a society-wide, collective behavior that is much easier to identify than individual cases of statutory rape or child abuse. Insofar as we recognize that young girls have a right not to be raped and that children have a right to education, food, and a safe home, it is clear that we preserve more rights by banning polygamy than we violate. In terms of harm minimization, you must vote for Con. Pro Case 1. Consent Zab argues that, "coercion occurs when there is no way in which an individual could act otherwise." This is absurd. Coercion is the use of force or intimidation to try to influence a choice. There is still a choice, just not a meaningful one, since it's between polygamy and social and religious ostracization. a. Family pressure: Zab argues that simply because people go against family pressure on a regular basis, it's not a meaningful form of coercion. What he fails to recognize is that due to the closed nature of the FDLS (the only polygamous group that's actually been mentioned in this debate), family pressure is extraordinarily powerful, to the point where it does actually render his argument that polygamy is a freely-made choice absurd. When one is raised in a family that isolates its children almost entirely from the outside world, going against that family and thus risking expulsion is basically impossible. b. Religious pressure: The same basic arguments apply. Yes, people go against divine authority on a regular basis, but rarely do so when they've been raised in a society that places huge emphasis on religion, especially when religion is very clear on a specific issue. Cheating once on one's wife is one thing, marrying outside the bounds of religion is entirely another. The perfect analogy here, and one that went unresponded to, is FGM. Yes, it's theoretically possible for a young woman to choose not to have her clitoris cut off. However, both her family and the larger society will ostracize her if she goes against their religious and cultural traditions. As such, he choice to participate in the procedure can hardly be called free. This is especially true since FGM, like polygamous marriage, usually takes place before the woman would be considered a full adult by American standards. Unless Pro also wants to advocate for the legalization of FGM, he should lose this round. 2. Reduction of abuse Zab rejects the idea that polygamy is a cause of abuse. However, I've already shown that it is above, so legalizing and legitimizing it will increase abuse. Zab's argument then hinges on the idea that legalization will improve relations with polygamous groups and thus increase reporting, allowing for regulation of this increased abuse. Given that, as already discussed, polygamous group like the FDLS tend to be incredibly paranoid in their dealings with the outside world, and given that they severely ostracize or otherwise punish anyone who makes the group look bad, this seems incredibly unlikely. Pro has very clearly lost the abuse argument. Yes, some abuse still happens under the status quo, because some underground polygamy still goes on, but the solution is clearly not to legalize polygamy. That will only increase abuse, neglect, and statutory rape. 3. Marriage rights I recognize that there are a few people who do practice polyamoury outside the bounds of extreme groups like the FDLS. The key word is "few." Since I've shown that within the bounds of the FDLS and similar groups, banning polygamy is necessary to prevent fairly extensive gender-based oppression, rights violations, and third-party harms, the unfortunate oppression of this small group of people who practice polyamoury without these harms is a harm I'm willing to eat. Zab must show that there are literally thousands of people outside the FDLS who want to engage in polygamy to win the debate on this point. Since he will not be able to, this argument does not win him the round, because in terms of harm minimization, banning polygamy is clearly the best option.