Polygamous Marriages

I accept this challenge. I'd like to thank shoutevenshy for making this debate. It should be a fun topic to discuss. My argument will operate independently on two different fronts: first, I'd like to challenge his notion of the purpose of marriage as merely a practicality to make our lives simple. I'll then make arguments under his conception of the purpose of marriage to show why that, even if we take his viewpoint, polygamous marriage ought to be permissible. To begin, I think it's important to begin by talking briefly about the gay marriage debate. The major reason for why the gay rights movement became a thing is because our conceptions of what marriage is has shifted over time from less about a stable, formal committment, and more about a deep love for one another. That founding bedrock has been the fuel that propelled the US to legalize gay marriage. If we take this perspective of what a true marriage ought to be based around, love and not pragmatism, then this leads us to troubling questions for the anti-polygamy position: if this feeling of love and affection is what truly matters in relationships and marriages, then why are other factors relevent between humans? Male or Female, one or many, if all of them share the same mutual feeling of love and care toward one another, then why should anything else matter?If this point holds true, and it's on my opponent to refute this since this is the belief in the status quo, thus what ought to be the default belief for this debate, then by default there's no reason not to allow polygamy: the only difference from the currently allowed marriages and polygamy is the number of people. So long as the loving part of the marriage is present, that should not matter in determining whether or not they ought to be allowed to marry.But let's transition now to his framework of the practical reasons. Are there really valid practical reasons why we ought not allow polygamy?Before I go in response to each of his three refutations in detail, I'd like to make two general points that apply to each of his responses:First, all of these objections are rather minor in the sense that they can easily be solved and communicated between the family. If anything by legalizing it and allowing legal recourses to be put in place for these families to go to, it creates better avenues for these problems to be solved. So not only can these problems be solved in the status quo by them just deciding between themselves what happens in these situations, but by legalizing it we provide better avenues for these problems to be solved legally that don't currently exist, which make these problems even less relevant. Secondly, these are all things that are being dealt with successfully in the status quo, since it's not a secret that polygamy happens anyway, regardless of it's legality[1]. It's even to the point that police usually don't enforce it due to the belief in the freedom of choice[1]. Don't believe it? Just go turn on TLC and watch the show called Sister Wives, which is a reality-tv show based around one such family[2]. So the concerns voiced by my opponent really aren't that impactful reasons to deny polygamists their right to lawfully wed, since they're already being dealt with in the status quo.But let's look at each reason individually now.His first reason is flawed on multiple levels: 1. This is certainly something that the couple can work out without much issue. All it takes is a conversation between the family to get them to agree that this is what should happen in this situation, and the fighting becomes a non-issue since they would've already decided. 2. The solution to this problem is to legalize polygamy and allow for these things to be written into their last wills and testiments. That way there's no fighting since things are already set in stone. 3. This is still a problem in traditional marriages as well, it's not unique to polygamous marriages. Families and in-laws fight over possessions in the event of a death in traditional marriages as well, so this seems like a faulty reason to deny polygamy. The second reason seems equally flawed: 1. Again, this is something that can be discussed among the family and the children should this have to happen. This ought not be something that really holds polygamous relationships from being legal. 2. Again, the answer to this problem is by legalizing polygamy and providing legal in-roads for families to seek legal council over these things in the event that one parent is abusing custody rights. Under the status quo there's no legal alternative or medium for which to deal with this issue. Only by affirming and legalizing polygamy can we create this alternative. The third point is eerily similar in nature to the first point, so I'll rehash the points again: 1. This is something that can be discussed and figured out between the family. There's no reason to believe that this actually has to be a problem 2. Legalizing polygamy provides the solution to this problem. There's no legal way to receive mediation for these kinds of situations, meaning that only in the status quo could this potentially be a problem. Legalizing polygamy gives the members of the family access to legal counciling should this event occur. To conclude, I don't feel like there are very solid reasons to disallow polygamy from being a legal form of marriage. I've shown through multiple methods and arguments why this is the case. With that, I'll pass the floor back over to my opponent.Sources:[1] - http://family-law.lawyers.com...[2] - http://www.tlc.com...