Today’s motion is “Polygamous marriage should be recognised”. As proposition we define this motion as: marriages that involve more than one spouse for a person, should be recognised as a legal practise. As more and more types of marriages start being accepted around the world, we start to question whether others should be accepted too. Polygamous marriages are accepted in quite a few areas, but also clearly condemned in the other remaining areas. But we the government want to legalise Polygamous marriages in all areas because it’s a person’s right to decide who he wants to marry, and that people who already practise polygamous marriages should have the opportunity to celebrate their traditions in other countries, also as we publicise polygamous marriages we start to be more aware of the problems it causes in society and we can solve it. We are not saying it is better than the monogamy system or that everyone should practise polygamy, we just want to give people the choice.
All the Yes points:
- More Prosperous Family
- Freedom and rights
- Flavoring efficiency for limited supplies:
- Having a way better beneficial impact on society
- Proposition Summary
All the No points:
- Impact of recognising polygamous marriage
- Psychological harms of polygamy
- It would create demographic imbalance
- It would destroy immigration policies
- ROLE OF STATE
- REALITY OF THE SITUATION
- Czech Republic summary
More Prosperous Family
By having polygamous marriage in practice, we can lessen a considerable number of burdens such as financial hardship, domestic strife, everyday stresses, which are truly the main causes of divorcing and non-prosperous family. All these problems have been at present when the family lacked an strength or an energy to handle the endless demands of life. It is not , of course, about the incapability of making life but the inevitable hardships of many of us. We are doubtful about the loving parents, bereft of any money, would have the time to love, to care, and even to feed their emaciated children when there are the works to be done and the money to be earned. Then why not can we have the partners that are not limited into the stereotyped number of two and make our life smoother? Not only would the polygamous marriage maintain the serene of the family but also prompt them into the promising prosperity. Rationally, we see that unanimous four-partnered polygamous family will be earning more money and organizing domestic affairs more easily than the two-partnered. And as it is our main stance, we are not compromising a very value of monogamy but have got the people to know that there is a choice of polygamy that might be satisfactory to them. In conclusion, we believe the polygamous marriage would bring with itself a prosperity that is indispensable in maintaining the stability of family and prompting them to the better life.
The proposition idea of bigger family having less problems seems interesting, but it falls on many levels.
Firstly, It is true that bigger family will have bigger income, but on the other hand family being bigger implies more people to feed from the family income, which causes similar income per person. Moreover, taking the fact that polygyny is more common, families will have less male partners, which combining with lower average female wage makes even lower family income per member [[http://goo.gl/kNzmz]]. In addition, there will be more children per male, which causes higher percentage of family members depending on other, which again decreases the family income per person.
Secondly, if anyone is not able to manage their family, the possibility of using grandparents, babysitters or friends still exist and there is no need of recognition by state. Moreover, if state would allow this marriage, partners will have responsibilities each other and they will be more likely tide to live together in one household, which can cause even greater tension in family. More partners in a marriage means also more opinions on different issues, therefore the possible cooperation between partners will be much more difficult. It is always hard to achieve consensus. So most important person will likely decide. That makes the other members unequal, creates tensions and oppressed environment. Vote is always an option but some families might be even (not odd) and either way there will be some people who don’t agree with the decision. Any of these scenarios does not help in functioning of a family. Moreover, both scenarios will cause tensions in family, jealous behaviour and stress between unwilling partners of the same sex. This will occur particularly by disagreement of accepting other members [[http://goo.gl/tdkth p. 317]].
To conclude, the polygamous family will not prosper more, but even worse thanks to disagreements and lower income which is why state should not recognise it.
Freedom and rights
Each and every citizen, man and woman have a right to choose who they want to spend their life with and how they want to. By legalizing polygamy in independent countries to fit into the society people will have this right as well. Polygamous marriage allows a person to marry more than one spouse. With this they feel more comfortable with their partners. If all the spouses agree on term that they will all be living under the same roof then it doesn’t go against they’re human rights and will be accepted. Currently people think that polygamous marriage takes away the woman’s right but there will be conditions allowing each wife to have an equal right amongst the others. Of course each country will have its own set of conditions and terms, but if they approve and act accordingly they will be a polygamous family. Though there are countries that allow polygamy but in a different manor will not be like this one. The countries that allow it are either because of development, tradition or religion requires them to. Though polygamy is rare and a few religions like Christianity require people to be monogamous. Even though they believe in god, it still their right to choose whom they want to marry. But this doesn’t mean that we encourage people to be polygamous, but rather we give them a better understanding. Recently in the US the LGBT has been approved, so why can’t polygamous marriage be approved in other countries. Many people are either biased or stereotyped against polygamous marriage. Though polygamous marriage has already been approved in some Independent countries but they all have a civil law condition. By having polygamous marriage recognized people will have the choice to marry whosoever they please. But this doesn’t mean that we encourage many monogamous marriages to shift to polygamous marriage.
Proposition is willing to achieve a not existing right by breaking many others. The main point in this debate which was completely missed be the side of government is that we are talking about recognition of marriage not polygamy itself so everybody is free to live in a polygamous family if he wishes to as it is in the status quo, but official recognition will allow officially breaking more rights and freedoms. Firstly, it is impossible to achieve equality between spouses, because most of women will be oppressed by the unequal and stressing families [[http://goo.gl/eYY0L]].
Secondly, the freedom of choice is also limited by impossibility to decide about new partners. Moreover, we argue that polygamous marriage will harm the freedom of choice of men because most of them will not have a partner at all. That creates social tensions and they just don’t have any right to decide. The consequences on breaking rights and freedoms with recognising polygamy will be much bigger then benefit of one individual, which are even impossible to achieve; therefore, the state should not recognise it.
There is difference between polygamous and same-sex marriage. Lesbian or gay behaviour is naturally given and it wasn’t choice of the person, where on the other hand, it is not proven that people are born polygamist and it is just a desire of person instead of natural orientation. Moreover, not all countries recognise gay marriage and proposition failed to justify why it is the same case as polygamous marriage. Even if men would be polygamist by nature, it doesn’t mean that we should strive for it and support it.
Flavoring efficiency for limited supplies:
The limitless usage of obsequies electronic devices and machines such as cars, TVs, ovens, refrigerators and all the things that we use at every moment everywhere will bring with itself from the present to the future, as we more than often hear, the catastrophic consequence of our earth being deserted of any plants and, of course, fresh air, water ( because the nature is the system, all the things depend on one another ) that are, as we and every earthly people will believe, the most important things to consider first other than the visas of unknown mortals, devious accusation of one man’s own liberal decision with women , the simplicity of opposition viciously exaggerating polygamy as a hell as to be a venue of suicide or the severe punishment for unmarried minority. Logically, we see the very efficiency of six-partnered polygamous family having a one refrigerator (the example and the main reason of global warming) but on the contrary, in polygyny (as is now the main prevalence in our society), those five women of the said six-partnered family must have had a five refrigerator or a five micro oven of each of her own in plain monogamy. And also, if it’s really what opposition wants to think that polygamous family will spend their money per member and will not be considered as a rich or prosperous because the feeding and spending of so many people, we thank the opposition for the idea that the greater the number of family member, the much the efficiency in general. Because, in monogamous family, the members will virtually be in low number which means a little money for the privation and other needs and much money for the things as cars, TVs, computers so on, which are the main animosities of well-being of natural and therefore, systematically, human being. So at the end of the day, we again thank the opposition, and believe in the assumption that the more polygamous family the better the efficiency from the present to the future, economically and systematicall
Proposition assumes that with recognition of polygamous marriage, most people would live together, having saved the whole Earth.
Before pointing out that this logic is false, we stress that proposition, having agreed that economic situation and prosperity of polygamous families might be worse(“not be considered as a rich or prosperous because the feeding and spending of so many people”), has stopped supporting their 1st argument.
First of all, the impact on environment will be minimal. Each family member needs his own cellphone, laptop, room and many other things that can’t be shared. The family needs to feed similar amount of people, which can cause that there would be instead of 4 fridges (because they lived in separated household before) just 3, which are today CFC free. Plus a single person needs a smalll fridge consuming less energy. The difference is rather none.The biggest contributor to the pollution from households is food, clothes and recreation, which will remain constant in every case [[http://goo.gl/NCVPe p. 10]]. The only thing, which may be influenced is petrol and heating, which makes just 17%. This can be decreased by ⅕ maximum, which makes just 3.4%, thus is not such a significant benefit. Moreover, people with lower income are more willing to pollute environment [[http://goo.gl/8LbyB]] because they are not able to buy eco-friendly products which are more expensive. Secondly, with sufficient amount of money, families will start to care about environment and not just about their own well being, causing much bigger impact on everyday life, because it will change their way of thinking and caring about nature. Ascending in pyramids of needs, the impact will be bigger.
Taking into consideration that there are many other ways of saving the environment such as electric cars, renewable energies and waste separation, the real impact of polygamy would be minimal. Therefore, it cannot be the decisive reason for such a substantial change in society.
Having a way better beneficial impact on society
We believe in the fact that more people in one family means a more possibility of cultural intersection. From the time we and state recognize the polygamous marriage, it will rationally become common rather than rare which will prompt the polygamy to be spread out around more places around the world, if not drastically. As we know that even good many people believe in the fact that the racism and the discrimination of caste, the origin such as Asian or Indian in Western countries are already exterminated in great amount, but sadly, as we are sure of, they are not. But by recognizing polygamous marriage and therefore spreading it, we will change the view of society from its inner perspective, the family. Having the member of a black-skinned or a small eyed Asian or a query accented Indian in a polygamous family and living together as partners because some of them not to die of lack of privation and neediness and others live as usually as morning sun- breakfast together, watch TV together, discuss some issues together- as a wholesome family would definitely have its benefit. But certainly, many of the “different ones” would not directly accepted as the reliable family members out of everlasting belief that they are different, but gradually, as they are living together day by day, the members of the polygamous family would subconsciously accept them not far more from a month. If the psychological impact what most triggers opposition, we are also happy to claim: As the days and months go by, it would become common than rare of seeing involuntarily, for example, black and white ones pick up their mongrel children from kindergarten, and hence the culturally diverse polygamous family members themselves would become “raw models” for everyone that psychologically and intrinsically studies from his/her environment. Conclusively, the solution is conditioning and informing them in a taciturn but most effective way that doesn’t cost much nor does demand much ef
Since the proposition “dont want to force anyone into any commitment” we suppose they believe that accepting those “odds” (people of different races, cultures, religions and castes) to a marriage would be a common practice among polygamists. Some people are willing to live in a multicultural family and some not. For those who are willing to live in such relationship there is no problem to solve (they don’t have any prejudices) and in most cases they already do – like the multicultural monogamous couples nowadays which are quite common [[http://goo.gl/lq2yR]]
On the contrary, those who have some kind of prejudice and are not willing to live in a multicultural family wouldn’t marry people from different cultural backgrounds or a different race. Proposition itself stated that “Obviously, no rational person would engage in any nuptial relations unless they are completely sure it is better for them“. But now they claim “But certainly, many of the “different ones” would not directly accepted as the reliable family members out of everlasting belief that they are different”. Likewise people do not marry others in order to welcome them in their households and save them from poverty, especially if they don´t approve of them and it means losing money. Besides, if they like it people can live in one house without being married. Couples may adopt a child of a different culture and several other practices like international students exchanges or Au-pair programs are widely expanded. Introducing polygamy does not trigger families to marry foreigners.
People will marry other people after they will accept them, not before. A family is usually created when people decide to marry each other after spending time together and finally ensuring themselves that this is somebody they want to spend their life with. Therefore there is no reasoning for the statement that polygamous marriage would be an opportunity to meet people and spread multiculturalism.
The opposition’s arguments are merely grounded upon the assumption that, in polygamous family, the inequality between women and man’s authority and therefore bad impact on children, which factors would also induce futile problems. But those arguments of opposition were the main reasons why we are purposing to recognize the polygamous marriage: as opposition claimed in their “Role of State”, the state’s role is to protect its citizens. But in order to do so, the state should familiarize itself with the problems by recognizing it and take actions against those said problems “within” the polygamous family. That’s why we are not encouraging any abusiveness between the family members and other induced problems, which therefore, as we can easily see, directly rebuts the opposition as a whole.
Firstly, in polygamous marriage, we see a reasonable benefit of, for example, at least ,four-partnered family earning more money than the average family. And hence a little possibility of said problems would be induced instead of much possibility of divorcing and therefore orphans : as opposition claimed, the feeding and spending of per members of polygamy would eat the earning money rapidly and therefore it can’t be considered a prosperous family, but “prosperous” doesn’t mean just a rich, but well-being and wholesome family. Also “it’s a way of prosperity to eat and spend much” in polygamous family.
Secondly, we see the benefit of two psychological facts to solve the problem of discrimination against racism, caste, origins such as Asian and Indian and so on: First, by recognizing and spreading polygamy, there would be greater possibility of different people being mingled together as a family. After days go by, the family members would accept each other “subconsciously”. Secondly, the said members of culturally diverse polygamous family themselves would become “raw models” for the society that “subconsciously” studies from his environment.
Thirdly, it is contradiction itself for opposition saying that members of polygamous family would have “his own cellphone, laptop, room and many other things”, when they actually claimed “family being bigger implies more people to feed from the family income” and implied polygamy as not rich as to have incapability of buying extravagances. As we and they believe, having many members of the family means so much spending and feeding of them, which implies a little money would be left for those things like laptop, cell phone, TVs , computers and so on. Yes, it is a favorable advantage of polygamy for our limited supplies such as fresh air, water, and natural balances if there are a few electronic devices being used and the efficiency in general.
Conclusively, we are on the side of freedom and rights of people, and therefore, by recognizing it, we leave the decision for them and will respect their decision.
Impact of recognising polygamous marriage
To introduce the team line of team Czech Republic, we are not against people having polygamous relationships in the privacy of their home, but we strongly believe that state should not officially recognise such relationships because of all harms brought by them, as we will show in our arguments.
We say that the policy proposition suggests will have two major impacts. Firstly, that not only will people who already live in those relationships be allowed to marry but more importantly more people will start to seek such relationships because the mindset and perception of society will change. Therefore there will be more people living in polygamous relationships which we will consequently show are harmful.
Secondly we claim that even though proposition suggests that both polyandry (one woman having more than one man) and polygyny (one man having more than one wife) will be equally possible, we claim that due to socioeconomic factor, polygyny will naturally prevail. (According to Murdoch’s Ethnographic Atlas, out of 1170 recorded societies, 850 are polygynous. http://goo.gl/OZKQ8)
In a monogamous couple, both sexes are represented equally, given the same rights and responsibilities, such as equal contribution to the development of a child or equal contribution in decision making process. Initiative of one to be in couple doesn’t stem just from sheer love to partner, but also from environment and circumstances such as having child, being dependent on the income of partner (almost always man) and for example family peer pressure. Same can be applied with initiative to divorce. In polygamous couples, we can see that even though some women intrinsically don’t agree having such relationship, they rather approve, persuaded by the extrinsic factors such as financial security, fear of leaving the child and for example pressure from family.
Therefore we claim that proposition policy will result in more marriages that are harmful to women and limit their rights.
As proposition we strongly disagree that the impact of recognising polygamous marriage would be negative and that we can do nothing about it. We believe that publicising polygamy would make people more aware and will erase the problems polygamy does have but it also will show that there is more good than bad.
We understand the opposition’s point that more people will pursue polygamy if it is legal. But this is self evident, as people would be unlikely to do something illegal and practise it more if it is legal. But also people who do start to marry will be people who have already practised polygamous relationships and know that it is better for them. Obviously, no rational person would engage in any nuptial relations unless they are completely sure it is better for them. They would experiment and have long term relations with people and only decide to marry if it’s beneficial for them, and they want to do it. We are not forcing any one into anything that is harmful, but rather we give them a choice because it could be better.
Secondly, team opposition, claim that women’s rights will be limited. This is not true. Murdoch says that polygyny will prevail, but looking at the reasons why, this information is outdated and overlooked. People used to value lots of children because they needed as much help to assist the family business. And even in labour work, 5 husbands would be better than 5 children. Wombs maybe scarce but in today’s society a family may only need 1-5 children, and that can be achieved without 3-7 wives. In today’s society, their are millions of confident, strong women willing to take the lead. And as we introduce polygamy more and more people will be aware and this biased belief of male dominance will be erased. Because there are homosexuals, hetrosexuals, and mixed. All different in representation of sex. Some women may want polygyny, and some men want polyandry. We want people to choose, we don’t want society to say polygyny will prevail.
Psychological harms of polygamy
Polygamy can cause serious psychological harms to one part of the marriage and the children. Marriage is an institution having raising children as one of the main goals. An ideal background for growing up means two parents – a mother and a father equally representing the two sexes. Growing up in a polygamous family may have disadvantages such as:
a) Understanding that one sex is superior to the other when it is not represented in equal number in the marriage.
b) Authorities confusion – Who should the children
listen to particularly? Is the other “mum”´s word as important as the real mother´s?
This might also lead to worsening of the relationship between the adults caused by envy that one partner is loved more by the children than the other or the discreditation of their authority which leads to great feeling of inferiority and frustration.
Women in polygyny marriage usually do not have the say whether the man marries another woman. Being one of many spouses makes them feel inferior next to the single opposite-sex spouse who represents „the king of the household“ and the superior same-sex spouse.
Long-term frustration coupled with feeling of own inferiority can result in suicides or mental disorders. The mental health of women from polygamous marriages are much worse than of those from monogamy couples and they have notably lower self-esteem and life satisfaction. [[http://goo.gl/iaQ8n]] We can see that even if the spouses enter a polygamy marriage voluntarily, they end up suffering from severe psychological damage. More importantly we need to take into consideration the children who can not choose their family – the mental health of the parents have a bad impact on children as the development is strictly determined by the family atmosphere. Therefore polygamous marriage should not be recognized in order to prevent such harms.
Oppositions point seems to be that in a polygamous relationship the wives suffer more and that the children will be confused. But this argument is very one sided just as the oppositions view on this whole debate is. They have based their whole idea that only polygyny is possible and that polyandry is not possible and further they have yet to talk about why they still support polygamy in the private of the homes but believe that the state should not be involved when the wives and children suffer as they say. Because the state could help society in all ways.
Firstly, on the point of raising children, opposition believes that a monogamous, straight relationship is the ideal background, because they equally represent both sexes. But if we realise what world we live in today, this is not the case. You could have homosexual parents they would represent one sex, or maybe the dad died, and the child lives with its mum, which represents one sex. But in both of these cases the child could be a safe and healthy person. Because in the end, representation of sex is not the reason a child is raised a certain way. Just like that a polygamous relationship should not cause any problems. Kids can learn new things and understand that one sex is not different mentally and that one sex doesn’t have to be dominant. Its what the parents do that matters, not what sex they are.
Also they say that the wives suffer more. But all the reason they have said all happen in a monogamous relationship as well. We are to make this legal all around the world, so people can recognise it. The women will have all the equal rights. This is a choice. If the marriage goes bad just like a monogamous one, they can leave and divorce. If the spouse marries a person the current spouse doesn’t like, they have the right to divorce. And as the state recognises it there will be more support groups and help to deal with problems, just like any other marriages. The problems you said, is the people not polygamy.
It would create demographic imbalance
In current world, most of polygamous marriages are polygynies, which includes multiple wives to one male. Number of these families is limited because of psychical barrier of doing illegal things and having mindset of monogamous family. With recognising polygamous marriage, the barrier will be removed and there will be an increase of females living together with just one male causing surplus of unmarried men, who will be unable to find a free partner [[http://goo.gl/n8VCu]]. Natural sex ratio of born children is around 105 born males to 100 born females [[http://goo.gl/g3uqY]] , causing similar number of each gender, which creates harmony in worlds partners market.
If this demographic balance is broken, it can have fatal consequences on individuals as well as on entire society.
Unmarried individuals have much higher chance of health problems caused by stressful searching, lack of female care and depressions [[http://goo.gl/SD6xt]] Secondly, unmarried men will be excluded from the society because of fragile social status which can be seen in India [[http://goo.gl/ABDdK]], which harms their personality as well as possibilities of social functioning.
Society will be influenced on economic level, because parents are accumulating wealth to make their sons more attractive, which is reducing their market position as we can see in China with sex ratio 1.18, in some rural areas 1.4. [[http://goo.gl/vwsQV]].
Moreover, unmarried men will be excluded from society, which will cause tensions between married and unmarried individuals. Secondly, there will increase competition among free individuals for remaining females, which can lead to conflicts. Moreover, willingness of sex partner can cause higher gender-based violence, including rising demand for sex work and human trafficking.
At the end of the day, recognition of polygamous marriage will make great number of men unmarried, which does not help nor country, nor individuals.
Firstly this is a choice among people. We do not encourage people to have polygamous marriages. So even if we legalise it not everyone would be married. Just like not everyone has married in a monogamous way. But we know that by making it legal and publicising It, the world would start to understand that women have every right as well. So sooner or later, more and more women would start having multiple husbands. Now, because then there would be polyandry and polygyny, that the female, male ratio would be normal.
Also it is not destined that every man or women should get married. Some don’t even want to. So it’s not a rule that every man who is not married is miserable and excluded. Many people even just have long term relationships, without marriage. Married people can divorce, people could die. All this, makes it hard for anyone to just say that a little imbalance will cause such a big problem, because unevenness is inevitable it could not cause a problem, we already live in an imbalanced world.
And finally who said, a unmarried person has all those problems. It’s not because there is polygamy that the person can’t find a spouse. But it’s more of a social conflict, “can you get a person to like you and spend time with you”. Polygamy is just a way you can shape this relationship, but it is not the cause or the solution.
It would destroy immigration policies
In most countries, giving visas to immigrants is based on various factors.The most valued factor is the possible relationship with a person already living in host country. If applying person has wife, husband or family, the possibility of acceptance is high.With recognising polygamous marriage, immigrants will have no boundaries in marrying foreigners to achieve higher possibility of being accepted and obtaining citizenship.Nowadays,using of this weakness in immigration policies is limited to one person per citizen during large period of time. With recognising polygamous marriage, individuals will marry simultaneously multiple partners, which can be even for financial return.With official relatives,the number of immigrants can increase and the possibility of dismissing of their application will be minimal.In USA,more than 2.3 million foreign nationals got permanent resident (LPR) status in this manner between 1998 and 2007 [[http://goo.gl/Owx6k]].Huge amount of immigrants will seriously harm the host country on economic and social level.Because they won’t have in real life any place to stay, welfare system will be more used,criminal rate can increase because immigrants in financial difficulties will find crime as the easiest solution, and living standard in country can decrease.Moreover,increased flow of immigrants will cause higher unemployment of low skilled natives, because immigrants are very often less educated and they have language barrier.Therefore,the low-paid jobs are the most probable solution, which causes that 1880000 American workers are nowadays displaced from their jobs every year by immigration [[http://goo.gl/UInaC]]. Secondly,there will be social tension, because the amount of immigrants won’t be able to assimilate in society causing creation of ghettos and small groups willing to compete with natives,which can increase xenophobia and harm rights and freedoms of greater amount of people than willing to have polygamy [[http://goo.gl/LVhjB]].
We, the government, think that this problem will not arise. As immigration policies start to collide with the status of polygamy being legal. We will also have to start redefining our policies. Immigration policies would check, what marital status they have and see the relationships, and will not a allow number of marriages to cloud the judgement of giving a visa. This would mean that no matter how many people you are married to, you wouldn’t be given an advantage.
Also an one that marries a foreign person would be aware and would check for any signs of other marriages and decide on marry or not. This is a choice. And does not allow anyone any advantages.
ROLE OF STATE
The role of state is to protect its citizens.It creates laws regulating people´s behavior in order to prevent harms to the state and population. Recognising polygamy would harm citizens of a state.
Recognition of polygamy would cause international marriages with the purpose of becoming a legal citizen of a more developed country with all the benefits it offers. State intervening in marriage would mean violating the rights of an individual because of the rights and responsibilities bonded to the institution of marriage where the spouses shall have the right to live in one country. We can see the problem even in monogamous families obtaining spouses permits resulting in fraudulent marriages, menacing both the immigrants and receiving country [[http://goo.gl/Dvr3h//]]
Since the harms like social friction with immigrants, job insecurity for natives and decreasing living standard could be prevented it´s the state´s main responsibility. It is also not fair to natives, taxpayers, who have to bail out the disputes then. By banning polygamy we would prevent the problems which stem from fraudulent marriages – huge number of immigrants that would not be legal under normal circumstances.
Secondly, state should protect families and children from potential harms. We see drugs being banned with the goal of protection and eventhough we cannot prevent every harm done to children (mother died) state should not support actions which can cause mental frustration and destroy their mental development. This occurs in polygamous families where inequality or oppressive atmosphere prevail.[[http://goo.gl/0L2Jk//]] State already intervenes in monogamous families preventing domestic violence or during divorce. The chance of such problems in polygamous families is extremely higher and would make the state’s policy of fighting domestic violence counterproductive.
By official recognition state would send a message that these actions are acceptable in modern society; that is fundamentally
If a man wants to marry into a citizen of a MEDC he does find the spouse. However when there is one person willing to do this then there would be more “costumers” to this fraud. Rather than having many felons all over the country the criminal scope will be narrowed down to only a few, making it easier for the state to take action and lesser people forced into this. Thus, all the native problems will actually be decreased by the more suspicious felons.
We believe that illegal polygamy will be of more damage to the children’s and the mothers’ mental development than legal one. With no legal registration under the law the women in polygamy are more vulnerable to abuse. Because there are no state law for these illegal wives and children, they are scared and ashamed of contacting lawful institutions when they are abused. Since polygamy is illegal they are under constant pressure of hiding their relationships with the men and therefore seize to make it public by contacting the police. For the children, when they are raised to hide their true identity and origins they build a psychological burden which is more capable of causing disturbed mental development rather than inequality of sexes. When the father sneaks to meet his second wife and the children born between them, the children are incapable of building a father figure, a male resemblance at all. These cause far more extreme problems than when divorce occurs. When a polygamous marriage takes place both parties have to go through the circumstances of any marriage. This marriage will have to approved by all the wives if a man wants have another wife (in the case of a polygyny). Thus, having been through broader and deeper consideration the marriage will be less likely to end up in a divorce. Also if the father dies the illegal wife and children are legally under no condition of receiving possessions.
Therefore the state should make polygamy legal to improve the conditions of illegal wives and children.
REALITY OF THE SITUATION
We agree that “it will rationally become common rather than rare which will prompt the polygamy to be spread out around more places in the world, if not drastically” stated in the 3rd affirmative point and would like to prevent it. As more wives are considered as power and pride for a man whereas a woman married to more men becomes neglected and disliked by the society and current societies of Asia, just like the Muslim world, justify polygyny rather than polyandry [[http://goo.gl/qbFPJ]], we believe that polygyny is more common and need to point out a contradiction of the 1st refutation that polygyny does not prevail, with the 3rd point “polygyny (as is now the main prevalence in our society)”. Since polygamy would widely increase and polygyny is more common, numbers of unmarried men willing to marry yet unable to find a free wife will be an inevitable situation.Greater number of men would not cause huge spread of polyandry. Ratio of unmarried men and available women would increase which can just by few percent have enormous impacts on society and individuals having psychical and health problems. [[http://goo.gl/zbfMT]]
There are plenty strong confident women nowadays, but they are different from those entering polygamous marriage- strong women wouldn´t share their man. The not as pushy women feel inferior. Inferiority is caused by the inequality made by one male having the same value as more women. Each woman has different needs and wishes making it impossible for the man to treat them equally which also causes inequality on the level of the relationship between women and on the level of the relationship between man and women.Divorce could be a solution but there are intrinsic factors such as having to leave behind a child, economic benefits of staying married or fearing the husband that finally lead to staying married[[http://goo.gl/ixe82]].
Recognising polygamy is a bad choice because in reality things don´t work so harmonically.
In their “Reality of the Situation”, opposition fails to point out how the unmarried men would have an “enormous” impact on society and physical and health problems of their own just because of the women. And, more than worse, they brutally absorbed into their belief that women are inferior to men and actually stated “Greater number of men would not cause huge spread of polyandry”, neglecting the women as weak as to have incapability of hosting a home, when they actually stated “There are plenty strong confident women nowadays ” And, hidden under the “different” headline, they actually restated their hackneyed statements of inequality, unmarried man by changing their simple repercussions a bit. More sadly, they didn’t succeed in differing the attributes of both monogamy and polygamy by saying “Divorce could be a solution but there are intrinsic factors such as having to leave behind a child, economic benefits of staying married or fearing the husband that finally lead to staying married”, which statement was, however, common in monogamy not just polygamy. Again they claimed “Each woman has different needs and wishes making it impossible for the man to treat them equally”, but we rational people can’t see any difference between the “wife” and children’ wishes in monogamous family and “wives” and children’ wishes in polygamous family to be treated equally. Because in both monogamy and polygamy, the wishes of everyone couldn’t be sufficed, would that be right to blame a man of not treating them equally just because he didn’t give everyone in the family what he or she wants? If those are really the cases the opposition doesn’t want, we infer that they are compromising a very value of monogamy as well.
So at the end of the day, in this argument, opposition actually restated and contradicted their former arguments which have been rebutted earlier and again just rebutted.
Czech Republic summary
Proposition had burden to prove that recognition of polygamy is essential and brings more benefits then harms. This wasn’t done sufficiently as affirmative side was mostly arguing about benefits of sharing a household (ecological view, multiculturalism and financial efficiency) where is no need of state recognition because people can live freely together all over the world.
Proposition hasn’t proved that there is an actual strong demand showing that there is no need of change. Instead of dealing with the most important issues, they pointed out just side effects assuming possible pros polygamy could have not being supported by any evidence. We have shown using several pieces of evidence that those cases would not work the way proposition assumed. In the 6 opposing arguments we have been continually proving that polygamy would bring severe damage to individuals, families and the whole society which would finally effect the safe state functioning. We lacked reaction for unavailable women or explanation how gender equality will be achieved.
Affirmatives agreed that polygamous families will be in worse situation which means losing their own 1st point and causing a huge contradiction in their team line. They were for freedoms of choosing a partner with promoting mandatory multiculturalism against will of individuals. Lastly, they claimed differently in each argument if polygyny will prevail making their case inconsistent even more.
If the only reason should be freedom of choice, we have shown that polygamous marriage brings so many harms to family members themselves as well as society as a whole that it is justified to limit the freedom of choice of the individuals in order to prevent those harms.
Overall, affirmatives were not able to support their only 4 arguments, keep their team line nor deal with the important ideas of opposition. On the contrary, we have shown the reality of the situation instead of ideal world and this is where this debate is won.