Intermediate Debate Competition R2: State Legislatures should decriminalize Polygamy

Thanks to Pro for his responses. "Citizens are not obligated to show why any activity shouldn't be illegal, rather the burden of law is always on the state. " Though democracy may work like that, debates don't. Polygamy is currently illegal and my opponent has made the assertion that it should be legalized. Thus, he is required to bring evidence supporting the legalization of polygamy in order to fulfill his burden of proof. I continue to maintain that decriminalization in order for participants to report other crimes is not a sufficient argument unless we can first establish that the act in question shouldn't be illegal. "I think we've already seen that current polygamy law is archaic and redundant. " This is an appeal to novelty, as neither archaic-ness nor redundancy is sufficient reason to make something legal. Though the rise of feminism has certainly empowered women to make choices in their marriages, I still maintain that the inherent structure of polygamy places an unequal burden on involved parties, specifically the women. "Women belonging to polygamist religions therefore have at least one less right than their counterparts. .. " Though Pro brushes it off as 'none of our business' and 'irrelevant', it is important to note that even given its legalization, any religious woman in a polygamous marriage will still have one less right than their counterparts; namely, they will not have the freedom to marry multiple men as is expressly forbidden by their religion. Within the fundamentalist Mormon groups, it is believed that a man should have three or more wives and that 'wives are required to be subordinate to their husbands. ' (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) To legalize polygamy for reasons concerning equality of religious freedom when the religion that practices it contains a patriarchal doctrine is counterintuitive. Though the state has no power in outlawing a patriarchal doctrine (as that falls under the category of religious opinion) they do have the power to stop it by legislating against the action of a polygamous marriage. "How then, is polygamy considered an unacceptable practice when the only substantive difference between illegal polygamy and legal adulterous co-habitation is a religious ceremony or a piece of official paper? " Firstly, Pro compares adulterous co-habitation with polygamy, and I think upon closer inspection, we will find the two are mutually exclusive. Extramarital affairs are seen as acts of betrayal and wives don't recognize mistresses as having equal status. This is where the importance of that 'piece of official paper' comes in, because we contrast that with polygamy, where participants recognize other spouses in the marriage. Secondly, such a comparison limits marriage to only a sexual relationship. Even legally speaking, marriage goes very much beyond that, being 'a contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. ' (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) As such, we find that the action of adultery being legal in some states is not a warrant to legalize polygamy. "The state is not empowered to fix the balance of love and power within a marriage any more than a state is empowered to make sure that parents treat all their children with equal love. " Though, indeed, the state has no control over the balance of love and power, it does have control over equality provided through the laws it passes. As I have already demonstrated in Round 2, even legally speaking, there is an asymmetrical balance of equality in any polygamous marriage amongst the spouses. "Can't we agree that comparing such conduct to the abduction and murder of humans is absurd? " Comparing the conduct of polygamy to the murder of humans might fall under the category of absurd, however, it wasn't conduct I was concerned about. Just reiterating that the claim of religious freedom doesn't give license to commit crimes. Pro's remaining arguments seem to have a general theme to them, mainly, 'not caring about conduct that does not concern us. ' Instead of addressing them one by one, I'll attempt to give a broader answer to that general concern. Many don't realize the profound impact changes in society can have, even small changes. Without attempting to condemn nor condone any of the following actions, they all affect society. The acceptance of divorce, gay marriage, birth out of wedlock, abortion, increase in single parenting and so many other shifts within culture all effect society, whether we see it or not. Take divorce for example. In theory, divorce is a private matter that shouldn't affect us in regards to other people. However, in practice, it ultimately will affect us. Children of divorced parents have higher incarceration rates then children raised in a 2-parent home. There are also behavioral problems associated in children of single parents. Both behavioral problems and increased crime rates are variables that can and do affect society. Ultimately, the success of family in society often signifies the success of civilization. When making laws in regards to marriage and family structure, it is integral to make sure such changes will be positive long-term. Brushing aside issues that concern the 'nucleus of civilization' (family) as irrelevant because they don't concern us ultimately fails to protect society long-term. (. http://www.nytimes.com...) Therefore, looking at the consequences of polygamous marriage on society is by no means an illegitimate argument. Conclusion: Even given rational limitations in law, the structure of polygamous marriage will not provide necessary boundaries of equality. I have shown the inherent inequality of polygamous marriage in principle and shown why polygamy being illegal does not violate the first amendment. I have provided sources for the negative impacts of polygamy on society and those involved in polygamous marriages. Pro has not disputed the claims of negative impacts nor asymmetrical balances inherent within polygamous relationships.