Polygamists should be granted the right to a civil union with rights similar to marriage

Preface: My approach for this round will be, first, to offer my criticisms to Pro"s premises and conclusions and second to provide a preemptive defense of my original arguments for Pro"s future rebuttal. Let"s keep in mind that Pro has defined freedom as "autonomy that doesn"t come into interference with the autonomy of others". Autonomy here, I believe, is defined as free from the influence of the others (specifically the government). Here is a summary of the syllogism my opponent presented in Round 2: P1 " Autonomy is the highest good P2 " The government"s primary concern should be the highest good C1 " To provide the highest good, the government should maximize autonomy P3 " Granting polygamists the right to a civil union with rights similar to marriage would be maximizing autonomy C2 " The government should give the rights to a civil union to polygamists Attack on P1, P2, and C1 I don"t necessarily agree with P1, P2 and C1, but for the purpose of my rebuttal I will not refute P1, P2 and C1. This will help keep the debate grounded to the resolution rather than straying off topic and debating the role of government. Attack on P3 This is the key premise that ties my opponent"s views on the roles and responsibilities of government and his opposition to my resolution. It is the link between C1 and C2 and it has several fallacies. I have shown in my Round 1 arguments several disadvantages with allowing polygamous civil unions. These disadvantages have advanced to Round 3 with no rebuttal or contradiction from Pro. Several of these disadvantages also influence the autonomy of others and therefore prevent the greatest good. Here are the effects on autonomy each disadvantage has: D1) Overturn established laws. There is no effect. D2) Violates the Equal Protection Claus of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. There is no effect as long as Pro is arguing for group marriage instead of solely polygamy (allowing for equal rights to both women and men). This is conceivable since this would meet Pro"s argument for maximum freedom. D3) Dereliction of obligation to children. I"ve shown that polygamy is detrimental to children because it increases cases of malnutrition and unnatural death. This was the conclusion of Dr. Henrich during his testimony for the Canadian Supreme Court. [7] He found that unlike in monogamous families, polygynous households contained a father that was likely to expend resources to acquire additional wives rather than investing in his children. This was a consequence of having married men remain continually in the marriage market. If Pro is indeed arguing for group marriage, then we can deduce that allowing group marriage would actually increase the severity of this disadvantage since both the father and mother would remain in the marriage market. I hope I"m not setting up a straw man, but the truth is that either D2 has no effect and we can conclude the D3 is made worse or both D2 and D3 remain. Either way, this dereliction of children creates a strong influence on the autonomy of children since it would violate their right to life. Therefore, this is the first case where giving the freedom to "marry as many people as they want" would not constitute the "highest good". D4) Dereliction of obligation to wife. No obvious effect on autonomy. D5) Increase in crime. Dr. Henrich"s report also predicted an increase in crime based on the polygynous households that he studied. [7] An increase in crime would certainly influence the autonomy of others. Among other reasons, it would constitute an increase in attacks on a person"s right to life and property. It would also require an increase security from the government. This is another case where giving the freedom to "marry as many people as they want" would not constitute the "highest good". D6) Decrease in age of marriage, increase in age gap. No obvious effect on autonomy as long as age restrictions remained on civil unions to prevent harming children. Keep in mind that I have not conceded any of the disadvantages of polygynous civil unions to Pro. In fact, every point I"ve made has progressed to the final round without remark. Instead, I have found that not every disadvantage I listed influences the autonomy of others. Several did, however, and looking back at this exercise we can see that the argument that Pro proposes fails. Granting polygamists the right to civil unions would not provide the "highest good" because as Pro defines the "highest good" as "autonomy that doesn"t come into interference with the autonomy of others", we clearly see that polygynous civil unions would interfere with the autonomy of others. Coincidentally, Pro"s argument fails further when we look at its effect on my resolution. As my opponent has defined the "highest good" as maximum autonomy (from the government) we can conclude that the maximum autonomy would actually be no government involvement in the personal relationships of its citizens. This would dictate that the government would not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. [8] Therefore, my opponent is actually arguing against civil unions in general since civil unions are licensed by the state government. We can conclude that either pro supports my resolution or, in the very least, we can conclude that his arguments don"t pertain to this debate. In defense of future rebuttal Since this is my final round, I"d like to mention that the sources I"ve presented are extremely well established. This is especially the case in the testimony presented to the Canadian Supreme Court by Dr. Henrich, shown in [7]. There were several expert witnesses that supported the case against polygamy but Dr. Henrich"s report was the most conclusive. In fact, he completely devastated the opposing expert witness. In most cases, he reversed the opposing expert"s finding in support of his own. In the end, the ban on polygamy endured as the Supreme Court found in favor of those opposed to polygamy. I have confidence that the judges of this debate will reach the same decision. [8] . http://www.lp.org...