Polygamy should be legal in the United States

Self-referentialCon states "culture does dictate and determine what is legal and not legal within a society."Yes, by definition. But this is self-referential i.e. circular to use this as a reason for a policy. By saying "we should do X because it's our culture" we prevent change from ever happening. You are basically saying "this is how we should do things because it is already the way we do things" and giving your stance no other reasoning. A good culture will determine these things based on substantial reasons not based solely on "this is because of what we think".A culture could practice human sacrifice or prohibit life-saving and hold on to it by just saying over and over again "well it's our culture".We are a part of our culture, the voters and politicians are. Hence we can change our culture and only through reason can we determine whether we should or not. Just pointing out "culture says..." is not a reason. It is a statement of what is but not a statement of what ought.If the policy is written well there will be no loopholesCon reiterates the whole concerns about taking advantage of the tax system. But a hard and fast limit on "no increased benefits in this area of the contract passed X number of people" could be implemented and would solve the problem.It is possible if we make it lawCon says it is not possible to split houses by fractions. But it is possible.No Harm from polygamyThe difference between polygamy and pedophilia is the harm done to non-consenting adults. With incest there is the concern that the child could wind up with genetic defects.Yes there is a differenceCon says there is a difference between saying we can fix it and actually being able to put a system in place to make it work. Yes, this is true. The debate is over "Polygamy should be legal in the United States" NOT "Polygamy should be legal in the United States under any and all plans put forth to make it reality".People can make what ever agreements they want within reasonThere is no reason to reject an agreement as valid between two (or more) consenting adults to live together forever and to accept sex outside of that or to regard sex under such circumstances to be a form of "violating commitment" since "commitment" is something defined by the parties involved and if they define it in a way where they are allowed to have sex with other partners they aren't hurt by it and if they are that's their own fault for making the agreement.On the JobCon states If I took the definition of marriage. Which is wanting to be with someone forever in most circumstances and put that definition in the job situation. You would be stuck at that job forever if you chose to commit to it. Just because you change the definition of something, you have to look at the underlying foundation and principle of the circumstance in question and how the definition applies.And tries to use it against me. Yet it was Con who said this would set a bad example for children that if we made 'commitment' in marriage less valueable then kids wouldn't care about commitment to a job. But then con says "just because you change the definition of something..." and yet con is the one who played with the definitions by equating "commitment" in the context of marriage with a job when most people in jobs are just trying to do as well as possible to make money and get ahead and so you're committed to doing well while you do your job but when a promotion is available or a better position opens up elsewhere you'd be foolish not to take advantage of it. That makes "commitment" when it comes to a job different from the commitment when it comes to marriage, which makes Con's attempt to frame polygamy as convincing children to have no commitment in their jobs false.HospitalsMy point about the hospitals is simply that by prohibiting polygamy that also stops hospital visitation rights. Even if financial rights should be limited (and can be by simply writing such regulations into law) people should still get to see their loved ones in the hospital. My points about how hospitals could then be allowed to have reasonable regulations about how many people can be in there at a time is just acknowledging that otherwise there may be an issue with this. But since it's easy to fix it doesn't stop us from saying "Polygamy should be legal in the United States"VOTE PRO!