Polygamous Marriage Should Be Recognised
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.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
More Prosperous Family
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
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:
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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 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.
What do you think?