Before I start on my arguments, I would like to give 2 basic pointers on parliamentary debating, which the proposition clearly seems to be in need of.
Firstly, the example on polygamy in Hindu mythology - giving an example as an argument (of precedent, or otherwise) is hardly the basis for one. To that effect, it was well rebutted by the DLO with a counter-example and nothing else, because that’s all it deserved.
Secondly, our very honourable and experienced proposition whip mentions that "whether the honourable DPM believes that dowry crimes shall increase as a result of polygamy , are hardly facts of evidence" - does he want us to try polygamy and dowry laws on a sample case, and provide statistics? (note here that polygamy-friendly Islam doesn't have dowry) The prop clearly has no idea of logic-based arguments, and would only go after studies, which they have so easily presented and even more easily misrepresented, but more on that later.
Now, while going about with their argumentation, the proposition has clearly forgotten about a major part of India, namely rural India, where the society isn't as progressive as they believe, the people aren't as educated as they think - and yes, many aren't rational thinkers as well. If they were, vote bank politics and buying votes would be a thing of the past - but that’s another debate altogether. Nonetheless, my point of rural India and how the rural Indian wife suffers more than anybody else shall keep coming in the following arguments.
The major points of clash, as the opposition sees it are the following three
1. Apparent economic benefits & population control
2. Inherent polygamy (which mysteriously becomes 'polygamous tendency' in prop whip)
3. Supposed reduction in various negatives of monogamy (dowry crimes, AIDS etc)
Firstly, on the point of ‘apparent economic benefits’. The PM gave utopian examples of rich men and women having multiple spouses and thereby improving the average lifestyle and reducing the number of 'bums and hobos' on the streets. The obvious flaw in this argument is the equation of marriage to money. People cannot just buy marriages and improve lifestyle. If that was the case, then rich men would "buy" wives from an entire village and have a harem ready all for themselves. This comparison is demeaning the concept of marriage.
On the point of population reduction, their example of x, y and z clearly has forgotten an obvious variable i.e. the number of kids each remaining (y-1) wives/husbands can have. Let the average value of this obvious parameter be 'o'. Now, let polygyny case P have a man with y wives and, thus, x children. Let monogamy case M have y men with y wives and, thus, z children (at an average of 'o' per couple). Economic capability would limit x to be less than z, since y+1 individuals provide for x kids in case P. However, what they forget in case P is the remaining (y-1) men who were considered as husbands in the monogamous case M. These (y-1) husbands will produce ‘o’ kids at an average. Thus, the only difference between case P and M is the case of the polygamous husband who produces ‘x’ kids in P instead of ‘o’ kids in M. Clearly, with more wives in P, x is greater and hence your population would actually increase with polygyny.
Of course, in case you claim that there are more women considered for the y men in polygamous case P, then you would also agree that in case P we would just not have enough marriageable women in the country to marry all the men. In such cases, some men would resort to prostitution for the sexual desires, with emotional desires being totally neglected. Or, in rural indian society, younger girls might be forced into marriage, which affects future generations.
Note that this example applies very well for polyandrous women too, but our emphasis is on polygyny here since that would seem more likely, considering our male dominated society and the skewed sex ratio in favour of men. Thus, the population example creates more problems for society via prostitution, or via increased population, depending on how you look at it. In fact, the way the proposition arguments are framed, the only thing that’s worth noticing in ‘apparent economic benefits’ is the word 'apparent'.
The next point of clash is based on the study that humans naturally prefer polygamy (or polygamous tendency as the prop whip very conveniently rephrased it). Firstly, is marriage a natural thing, or is it a man-made institution? Would Adam and Eve want to have married as a natural consequence? I'm sure that the proposition was pointing to the fact that humans would wish to have sex with multiple partners. That is what the proposition calls polygamy/polygamous tendency. In that case, besides completely misinterpreting the basic essence of polygamy, once again the proposition is demeaning the concept or essence of marriage by equating it to sex. Also, as my LO has clearly stated, there is no end to this need for sexual variety, and people might add to their spouses every few years in their marriage just for want of good, novel sex.
Once again, I bring to you the pitiable condition in rural India, where women aren't allowed to express their sexual desires - it is considered sinful for a woman to want to have sex, and natural for a man. To this effect, men will have a number of wives, which, in all probability, will not be taken in good spirit by the (helpless) women. These women can't do anything about it because a man would be expected to have a number of sexual partners - where will they get support from? Such a law of polygamy will be oppressive towards such women.
By the points of the prop whip it seems like marriage, to him, is more of a barter/business-like tradition, where people marry to either acquire money or a continuously supply of sexual pleasure, completely neglecting the emotional aspect to marriage. I pity the woman who will marry him.
Finally, I would like to talk to you about the so-called reduced negatives in polygamy. The DPM mentions how "Forced arranged marriages, dowry crimes, domestic violence and infidelity, among other issues brew a large amount of dissatisfaction amongst monogamous couples" and that "legalisation of polygamy provides people the option of finding satisfaction in another partner". First of all, if you do have problems with your monogamous or polygamous spouse, you should file for divorce!! You don’t run away from it by marrying an additional person. This also seems to suggest that when you marry another person, then you are not taking consent from your current spouse, all the more reason to wreak havoc to a household. And as is rightly pointed out by the DLO, polygamy, by virtue of having more than one spouse for a person, will have inherent competition among spouses, and this gives rise to greed in terms of more dowry where it is prevalent (such as rural India). Some spouse might have a high spending power and may spend more on his child who lives in the same house as another child with a poorer parent. Such disparity will create a whole lot more problems in the household, which may turn into court cases. And employment among lawyers at the expense of peace in one's house is not at all a laughing matter for the opposition.
About the decrease in the spreading of AIDS, that is clearly rebutted by the LO who stated that it is not mandatory even in monogamy - how will it prevent the spread of AIDS in polygamy? It seemed so convincing that neither the DPM nor the prop whip picked it up after.
Thus, I have clearly shown to the house how there aren’t any apparent benefits or reduced negatives in polygamy – infact only worse off situations and conditions. I have proved how these conditions will be detrimental most of all to women in rural India, which forms a very large chunk of the population. I have also shown how arguments such as the containment of AIDS or sexual variety are totally misconstrued and pointless from the side of the proposition. With that I am proud to oppose this highly fallacious motion.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Prop Whip
Ladies and gentlemen, as the proposition whip, my job is to provide to you a cost-benefit analysis and show you how the proposition has clearly managed to win all the major points of clash. Firstly, let us take a look at the 3 major points of clash-
1) Fundamental right to choice vs. rationality of the individual to make a good and sensible choice.
2) Polygamy being a viable legal and social alternative vs. the potential hazards in the form of economic, social or other perceived costs.
3) Polygamous tendency being inherent to an individual vs. the loss of sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Before I begin the cost benefit analysis, let me complement the DPM on his perspectives and insights into the case. However his beliefs hardly matter to the substance of the case, and are incidental if at all of any value. Speculation about Shri Lalu Yadav’s progeny or whether the honourable DPM believes that dowry crimes shall increase as a result of polygamy, are hardly facts of evidence- hence they do not count as constructives or rebuttals at all. At best, they are opinions, and NOT PROOF.
And now for the cost benefit analysis-
1) The opposition seems to believe that the government wants to convert every monogamous individual to polygamous. Clearly the proposition has stated that we only want to make polygamy a legally available alternative. Hence, there ought to be no contention on this premise. Next, the opposition seems to be clearly hesitant in considering citizens of India rational enough in making choices. This is clearly an unreasonable generalization. However uneducated or poor a person may be, it is by and large reasonable to assume that the individual is mindful of his/her best interests and will,in any circumstance(be it compelled or free will), make a choice that he/she finds most suitable at such a time. Let me remind the opposition that monogamy also rests on the premise that individuals are rational enough to enter into matrimonial alliances. Why then such frivolous assumptions in the case of polygamy. Clearly, this exposes double standards.
A very interesting fact is that the DPM actually said “ We need to 1st make our people understand how rising population… large families are detrimental to society in general and to them in particular…” . He inherently concedes to the fact that if people understand family planning, then polygamy may not be such a bad thing after all ! This is presumably his 2nd step …
The proposition also fails to see how “It will lead to excess men who cannot find wives and hence younger girls will be used.”(quoting the DPM). Is the opposition’s case based on polygyny alone? If so, they already concede to half our case without me breaking sweat. If not, then this line of defence is invalid, since there is an equal probability of polyandry which will tend to cancel out the effects as perceived.
The proposition has clearly shown you how a rational individual will have the liberty to make a choice, as against a legal ban. The opposition has come up with skewed argumentation along the lines of people not being rational enough to make the choice. The proposition merely wants to provide a legal alternative, while the opposition is afraid that “lawyers will have a field day”. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to generate employment in our country!(please take this as a rather dry piece of humour) The proposition seems to be afraid of passing the law only since “the changes would be endless.” Is the fear of change their only reason to deny citizens their rights? If so, they are going against the very fundamental purpose of laws- which are meant to enforce rights.
2) The opposition has been magnanimous enough to point out flaws in the system of polygamy. Breakdown of family machinery in the form of jealousy and lack of time, economic troubles for poorer sections, overpopulation as a potential hazard of polygamy, and social inequality creation between the genders and also between various strata of society were all the arguments put forth by the opposition.
As the proposition, we have argued that legalizing polygamy doesn’t mean replacing monogamy with polygamy- it simply means giving people a choice to decide which system of marriage they would want to follow. We told you that family machinery wouldn’t break down, because people who became part of such a family opted to be part of this setup. The opposition merely countered by saying that somehow jealousy would not allow for harmonious existence. If so, there is always the legal route out of such a marriage! If two individuals cannot harmoniously co-exist, they may choose to separate legally(or ‘divorce’) . However, presuming that divorce is an imminent consequence and thereby disallowing the legalization of polygamy is akin to saying that people must never get married simply because they would probably not last as a couple- a rather presumptuous and hollow argument by the opposition, which defeats their cause of monogamy too.
We told you that polygamy is viable legally and socially. Islam follows the system of polygyny, wherein a man may marry upto 4 wives at a time. Islam is today a global religion. About a third of the global population practices Islam. This clearly shows that inherent in the psyche of a large population, there is an acceptance to the notion of permitting polygyny. We have argued that due to this, people must be given the ‘choice’ to decide whether they want to follow such practices or not, and if they do, they must be legally allowed to do so. The opposition could only come up with the argumentation that somehow this would destroy the institution of marriage. Ladies and gentlemen, polygamy is also an institution of marriage! The question here is not of saving one institution at the cost of another, it is of making enough legal elbow room so that both may harmoniously co-exist, although mutually exclusive of each other. As the opposition wants it to be, the question will indeed become one of destroying ‘polygamy’ to save ‘monogamy’. We, as a reasonable government, wish to safeguard the interests of both viewpoints.
The opposition also told you of the evils of overpopulation and socio-economic inequality. Firstly, given a scenario where one man has ,say, ‘y’ wives and hence produces say ‘x’ number of children and comparing it to a case where ‘y’ men have ‘y wives’ and produce say ‘z’ number of children- it would be rational to assume that x is less than z simply because one man providing for more kids is rather a difficult task . Even in the case of polyandry(one woman producing ‘x’ kids from ‘y’ husbands and ‘y’ women producing ‘z’ kids from ‘y’ husbands), we would see no increase in population. Obviously, every woman has a limit to the number of children she can bear(physiologically)! Here also, x is less than or equal to z. Thus, the problem of overpopulation gets tackled, at least in a relative sort of way. Next, socio-economic inequality exists in status quo also. All the perceived ills of polygamous marriages like dowry system, etc. exist in status quo. Women are still the weaker gender ( by law). If anything, polygamy only improve status quo by allowing for greater cohesion between the many wives(or many husbands) and thus tackling injustice in a much stronger way.
3) Finally , the proposition told you that polygamous tendency was inherent to an individual. We cited scientific research(which is very well permissible as evidence within the scope of such prepared debate). The opposition merely countered by falling back upon destruction of the institution of marriage, which by now appears to have been their only stock argument. I have already shown you how that argument falls. Clearly, this point stands in favour of the proposition, as we have been able to draw a logical connect between innate human desire and the accordance of legality to such desire.
With this ladies and gentlemen, I quickly sum up. I have shown you the major points of clash(3 in munber). In each of the clashes, I performed an extremely unbiased comparison- and sadly, despite that, the proposition has managed to clearly tackle all the perceived harms of the opposition and win all the major points of clash. This hasn’t really been a nonsensical debate. It has clearly been a case of the opposition –
a) Not understanding premise
b) Not having enough of arguments to counter
With this ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to propose.
1) Fundamental right to choice vs. rationality of the individual to make a good and sensible choice.
2) Polygamy being a viable legal and social alternative vs. the potential hazards in the form of economic, social or other perceived costs.
3) Polygamous tendency being inherent to an individual vs. the loss of sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Before I begin the cost benefit analysis, let me complement the DPM on his perspectives and insights into the case. However his beliefs hardly matter to the substance of the case, and are incidental if at all of any value. Speculation about Shri Lalu Yadav’s progeny or whether the honourable DPM believes that dowry crimes shall increase as a result of polygamy, are hardly facts of evidence- hence they do not count as constructives or rebuttals at all. At best, they are opinions, and NOT PROOF.
And now for the cost benefit analysis-
1) The opposition seems to believe that the government wants to convert every monogamous individual to polygamous. Clearly the proposition has stated that we only want to make polygamy a legally available alternative. Hence, there ought to be no contention on this premise. Next, the opposition seems to be clearly hesitant in considering citizens of India rational enough in making choices. This is clearly an unreasonable generalization. However uneducated or poor a person may be, it is by and large reasonable to assume that the individual is mindful of his/her best interests and will,in any circumstance(be it compelled or free will), make a choice that he/she finds most suitable at such a time. Let me remind the opposition that monogamy also rests on the premise that individuals are rational enough to enter into matrimonial alliances. Why then such frivolous assumptions in the case of polygamy. Clearly, this exposes double standards.
A very interesting fact is that the DPM actually said “ We need to 1st make our people understand how rising population… large families are detrimental to society in general and to them in particular…” . He inherently concedes to the fact that if people understand family planning, then polygamy may not be such a bad thing after all ! This is presumably his 2nd step …
The proposition also fails to see how “It will lead to excess men who cannot find wives and hence younger girls will be used.”(quoting the DPM). Is the opposition’s case based on polygyny alone? If so, they already concede to half our case without me breaking sweat. If not, then this line of defence is invalid, since there is an equal probability of polyandry which will tend to cancel out the effects as perceived.
The proposition has clearly shown you how a rational individual will have the liberty to make a choice, as against a legal ban. The opposition has come up with skewed argumentation along the lines of people not being rational enough to make the choice. The proposition merely wants to provide a legal alternative, while the opposition is afraid that “lawyers will have a field day”. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to generate employment in our country!(please take this as a rather dry piece of humour) The proposition seems to be afraid of passing the law only since “the changes would be endless.” Is the fear of change their only reason to deny citizens their rights? If so, they are going against the very fundamental purpose of laws- which are meant to enforce rights.
2) The opposition has been magnanimous enough to point out flaws in the system of polygamy. Breakdown of family machinery in the form of jealousy and lack of time, economic troubles for poorer sections, overpopulation as a potential hazard of polygamy, and social inequality creation between the genders and also between various strata of society were all the arguments put forth by the opposition.
As the proposition, we have argued that legalizing polygamy doesn’t mean replacing monogamy with polygamy- it simply means giving people a choice to decide which system of marriage they would want to follow. We told you that family machinery wouldn’t break down, because people who became part of such a family opted to be part of this setup. The opposition merely countered by saying that somehow jealousy would not allow for harmonious existence. If so, there is always the legal route out of such a marriage! If two individuals cannot harmoniously co-exist, they may choose to separate legally(or ‘divorce’) . However, presuming that divorce is an imminent consequence and thereby disallowing the legalization of polygamy is akin to saying that people must never get married simply because they would probably not last as a couple- a rather presumptuous and hollow argument by the opposition, which defeats their cause of monogamy too.
We told you that polygamy is viable legally and socially. Islam follows the system of polygyny, wherein a man may marry upto 4 wives at a time. Islam is today a global religion. About a third of the global population practices Islam. This clearly shows that inherent in the psyche of a large population, there is an acceptance to the notion of permitting polygyny. We have argued that due to this, people must be given the ‘choice’ to decide whether they want to follow such practices or not, and if they do, they must be legally allowed to do so. The opposition could only come up with the argumentation that somehow this would destroy the institution of marriage. Ladies and gentlemen, polygamy is also an institution of marriage! The question here is not of saving one institution at the cost of another, it is of making enough legal elbow room so that both may harmoniously co-exist, although mutually exclusive of each other. As the opposition wants it to be, the question will indeed become one of destroying ‘polygamy’ to save ‘monogamy’. We, as a reasonable government, wish to safeguard the interests of both viewpoints.
The opposition also told you of the evils of overpopulation and socio-economic inequality. Firstly, given a scenario where one man has ,say, ‘y’ wives and hence produces say ‘x’ number of children and comparing it to a case where ‘y’ men have ‘y wives’ and produce say ‘z’ number of children- it would be rational to assume that x is less than z simply because one man providing for more kids is rather a difficult task . Even in the case of polyandry(one woman producing ‘x’ kids from ‘y’ husbands and ‘y’ women producing ‘z’ kids from ‘y’ husbands), we would see no increase in population. Obviously, every woman has a limit to the number of children she can bear(physiologically)! Here also, x is less than or equal to z. Thus, the problem of overpopulation gets tackled, at least in a relative sort of way. Next, socio-economic inequality exists in status quo also. All the perceived ills of polygamous marriages like dowry system, etc. exist in status quo. Women are still the weaker gender ( by law). If anything, polygamy only improve status quo by allowing for greater cohesion between the many wives(or many husbands) and thus tackling injustice in a much stronger way.
3) Finally , the proposition told you that polygamous tendency was inherent to an individual. We cited scientific research(which is very well permissible as evidence within the scope of such prepared debate). The opposition merely countered by falling back upon destruction of the institution of marriage, which by now appears to have been their only stock argument. I have already shown you how that argument falls. Clearly, this point stands in favour of the proposition, as we have been able to draw a logical connect between innate human desire and the accordance of legality to such desire.
With this ladies and gentlemen, I quickly sum up. I have shown you the major points of clash(3 in munber). In each of the clashes, I performed an extremely unbiased comparison- and sadly, despite that, the proposition has managed to clearly tackle all the perceived harms of the opposition and win all the major points of clash. This hasn’t really been a nonsensical debate. It has clearly been a case of the opposition –
a) Not understanding premise
b) Not having enough of arguments to counter
With this ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to propose.
Prop Whip
Ladies and gentlemen, as the proposition whip, my job is to provide to you a cost-benefit analysis and show you how the proposition has clearly managed to win all the major points of clash. Firstly, let us take a look at the 3 major points of clash-
1) Fundamental right to choice vs. rationality of the individual to make a good and sensible choice.
2) Polygamy being a viable legal and social alternative vs. the potential hazards in the form of economic, social or other perceived costs.
3) Polygamous tendency being inherent to an individual vs. the loss of sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Before I begin the cost benefit analysis, let me complement the DPM on his perspectives and insights into the case. However his beliefs hardly matter to the substance of the case, and are incidental if at all of any value. Speculation about Shri Lalu Yadav’s progeny or whether the honourable DPM believes that dowry crimes shall increase as a result of polygamy, are hardly facts of evidence- hence they do not count as constructives or rebuttals at all. At best, they are opinions, and NOT PROOF.
And now for the cost benefit analysis-
1) The opposition seems to believe that the government wants to convert every monogamous individual to polygamous. Clearly the proposition has stated that we only want to make polygamy a legally available alternative. Hence, there ought to be no contention on this premise. Next, the opposition seems to be clearly hesitant in considering citizens of India rational enough in making choices. This is clearly an unreasonable generalization. However uneducated or poor a person may be, it is by and large reasonable to assume that the individual is mindful of his/her best interests and will,in any circumstance(be it compelled or free will), make a choice that he/she finds most suitable at such a time. Let me remind the opposition that monogamy also rests on the premise that individuals are rational enough to enter into matrimonial alliances. Why then such frivolous assumptions in the case of polygamy. Clearly, this exposes double standards.
A very interesting fact is that the DPM actually said “ We need to 1st make our people understand how rising population… large families are detrimental to society in general and to them in particular…” . He inherently concedes to the fact that if people understand family planning, then polygamy may not be such a bad thing after all ! This is presumably his 2nd step …
The proposition also fails to see how “It will lead to excess men who cannot find wives and hence younger girls will be used.”(quoting the DPM). Is the opposition’s case based on polygyny alone? If so, they already concede to half our case without me breaking sweat. If not, then this line of defence is invalid, since there is an equal probability of polyandry which will tend to cancel out the effects as perceived.
The proposition has clearly shown you how a rational individual will have the liberty to make a choice, as against a legal ban. The opposition has come up with skewed argumentation along the lines of people not being rational enough to make the choice. The proposition merely wants to provide a legal alternative, while the opposition is afraid that “lawyers will have a field day”. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to generate employment in our country!(please take this as a rather dry piece of humour) The proposition seems to be afraid of passing the law only since “the changes would be endless.” Is the fear of change their only reason to deny citizens their rights? If so, they are going against the very fundamental purpose of laws- which are meant to enforce rights.
2) The opposition has been magnanimous enough to point out flaws in the system of polygamy. Breakdown of family machinery in the form of jealousy and lack of time, economic troubles for poorer sections, overpopulation as a potential hazard of polygamy, and social inequality creation between the genders and also between various strata of society were all the arguments put forth by the opposition.
As the proposition, we have argued that legalizing polygamy doesn’t mean replacing monogamy with polygamy- it simply means giving people a choice to decide which system of marriage they would want to follow. We told you that family machinery wouldn’t break down, because people who became part of such a family opted to be part of this setup. The opposition merely countered by saying that somehow jealousy would not allow for harmonious existence. If so, there is always the legal route out of such a marriage! If two individuals cannot harmoniously co-exist, they may choose to separate legally(or ‘divorce’) . However, presuming that divorce is an imminent consequence and thereby disallowing the legalization of polygamy is akin to saying that people must never get married simply because they would probably not last as a couple- a rather presumptuous and hollow argument by the opposition, which defeats their cause of monogamy too.
We told you that polygamy is viable legally and socially. Islam follows the system of polygyny, wherein a man may marry upto 4 wives at a time. Islam is today a global religion. About a third of the global population practices Islam. This clearly shows that inherent in the psyche of a large population, there is an acceptance to the notion of permitting polygyny. We have argued that due to this, people must be given the ‘choice’ to decide whether they want to follow such practices or not, and if they do, they must be legally allowed to do so. The opposition could only come up with the argumentation that somehow this would destroy the institution of marriage. Ladies and gentlemen, polygamy is also an institution of marriage! The question here is not of saving one institution at the cost of another, it is of making enough legal elbow room so that both may harmoniously co-exist, although mutually exclusive of each other. As the opposition wants it to be, the question will indeed become one of destroying ‘polygamy’ to save ‘monogamy’. We, as a reasonable government, wish to safeguard the interests of both viewpoints.
The opposition also told you of the evils of overpopulation and socio-economic inequality. Firstly, given a scenario where one man has ,say, ‘y’ wives and hence produces say ‘x’ number of children and comparing it to a case where ‘y’ men have ‘y wives’ and produce say ‘z’ number of children- it would be rational to assume that x is less than z simply because one man providing for more kids is rather a difficult task . Even in the case of polyandry(one woman producing ‘x’ kids from ‘y’ husbands and ‘y’ women producing ‘z’ kids from ‘y’ husbands), we would see no increase in population. Obviously, every woman has a limit to the number of children she can bear(physiologically)! Here also, x is less than or equal to z. Thus, the problem of overpopulation gets tackled, at least in a relative sort of way. Next, socio-economic inequality exists in status quo also. All the perceived ills of polygamous marriages like dowry system, etc. exist in status quo. Women are still the weaker gender ( by law). If anything, polygamy only improve status quo by allowing for greater cohesion between the many wives(or many husbands) and thus tackling injustice in a much stronger way.
3) Finally , the proposition told you that polygamous tendency was inherent to an individual. We cited scientific research(which is very well permissible as evidence within the scope of such prepared debate). The opposition merely countered by falling back upon destruction of the institution of marriage, which by now appears to have been their only stock argument. I have already shown you how that argument falls. Clearly, this point stands in favour of the proposition, as we have been able to draw a logical connect between innate human desire and the accordance of legality to such desire.
With this ladies and gentlemen, I quickly sum up. I have shown you the major points of clash(3 in munber). In each of the clashes, I performed an extremely unbiased comparison- and sadly, despite that, the proposition has managed to clearly tackle all the perceived harms of the opposition and win all the major points of clash. This hasn’t really been a nonsensical debate. It has clearly been a case of the opposition –
a) Not understanding premise
b) Not having enough of arguments to counter
With this ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to propose.
1) Fundamental right to choice vs. rationality of the individual to make a good and sensible choice.
2) Polygamy being a viable legal and social alternative vs. the potential hazards in the form of economic, social or other perceived costs.
3) Polygamous tendency being inherent to an individual vs. the loss of sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Before I begin the cost benefit analysis, let me complement the DPM on his perspectives and insights into the case. However his beliefs hardly matter to the substance of the case, and are incidental if at all of any value. Speculation about Shri Lalu Yadav’s progeny or whether the honourable DPM believes that dowry crimes shall increase as a result of polygamy, are hardly facts of evidence- hence they do not count as constructives or rebuttals at all. At best, they are opinions, and NOT PROOF.
And now for the cost benefit analysis-
1) The opposition seems to believe that the government wants to convert every monogamous individual to polygamous. Clearly the proposition has stated that we only want to make polygamy a legally available alternative. Hence, there ought to be no contention on this premise. Next, the opposition seems to be clearly hesitant in considering citizens of India rational enough in making choices. This is clearly an unreasonable generalization. However uneducated or poor a person may be, it is by and large reasonable to assume that the individual is mindful of his/her best interests and will,in any circumstance(be it compelled or free will), make a choice that he/she finds most suitable at such a time. Let me remind the opposition that monogamy also rests on the premise that individuals are rational enough to enter into matrimonial alliances. Why then such frivolous assumptions in the case of polygamy. Clearly, this exposes double standards.
A very interesting fact is that the DPM actually said “ We need to 1st make our people understand how rising population… large families are detrimental to society in general and to them in particular…” . He inherently concedes to the fact that if people understand family planning, then polygamy may not be such a bad thing after all ! This is presumably his 2nd step …
The proposition also fails to see how “It will lead to excess men who cannot find wives and hence younger girls will be used.”(quoting the DPM). Is the opposition’s case based on polygyny alone? If so, they already concede to half our case without me breaking sweat. If not, then this line of defence is invalid, since there is an equal probability of polyandry which will tend to cancel out the effects as perceived.
The proposition has clearly shown you how a rational individual will have the liberty to make a choice, as against a legal ban. The opposition has come up with skewed argumentation along the lines of people not being rational enough to make the choice. The proposition merely wants to provide a legal alternative, while the opposition is afraid that “lawyers will have a field day”. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to generate employment in our country!(please take this as a rather dry piece of humour) The proposition seems to be afraid of passing the law only since “the changes would be endless.” Is the fear of change their only reason to deny citizens their rights? If so, they are going against the very fundamental purpose of laws- which are meant to enforce rights.
2) The opposition has been magnanimous enough to point out flaws in the system of polygamy. Breakdown of family machinery in the form of jealousy and lack of time, economic troubles for poorer sections, overpopulation as a potential hazard of polygamy, and social inequality creation between the genders and also between various strata of society were all the arguments put forth by the opposition.
As the proposition, we have argued that legalizing polygamy doesn’t mean replacing monogamy with polygamy- it simply means giving people a choice to decide which system of marriage they would want to follow. We told you that family machinery wouldn’t break down, because people who became part of such a family opted to be part of this setup. The opposition merely countered by saying that somehow jealousy would not allow for harmonious existence. If so, there is always the legal route out of such a marriage! If two individuals cannot harmoniously co-exist, they may choose to separate legally(or ‘divorce’) . However, presuming that divorce is an imminent consequence and thereby disallowing the legalization of polygamy is akin to saying that people must never get married simply because they would probably not last as a couple- a rather presumptuous and hollow argument by the opposition, which defeats their cause of monogamy too.
We told you that polygamy is viable legally and socially. Islam follows the system of polygyny, wherein a man may marry upto 4 wives at a time. Islam is today a global religion. About a third of the global population practices Islam. This clearly shows that inherent in the psyche of a large population, there is an acceptance to the notion of permitting polygyny. We have argued that due to this, people must be given the ‘choice’ to decide whether they want to follow such practices or not, and if they do, they must be legally allowed to do so. The opposition could only come up with the argumentation that somehow this would destroy the institution of marriage. Ladies and gentlemen, polygamy is also an institution of marriage! The question here is not of saving one institution at the cost of another, it is of making enough legal elbow room so that both may harmoniously co-exist, although mutually exclusive of each other. As the opposition wants it to be, the question will indeed become one of destroying ‘polygamy’ to save ‘monogamy’. We, as a reasonable government, wish to safeguard the interests of both viewpoints.
The opposition also told you of the evils of overpopulation and socio-economic inequality. Firstly, given a scenario where one man has ,say, ‘y’ wives and hence produces say ‘x’ number of children and comparing it to a case where ‘y’ men have ‘y wives’ and produce say ‘z’ number of children- it would be rational to assume that x is less than z simply because one man providing for more kids is rather a difficult task . Even in the case of polyandry(one woman producing ‘x’ kids from ‘y’ husbands and ‘y’ women producing ‘z’ kids from ‘y’ husbands), we would see no increase in population. Obviously, every woman has a limit to the number of children she can bear(physiologically)! Here also, x is less than or equal to z. Thus, the problem of overpopulation gets tackled, at least in a relative sort of way. Next, socio-economic inequality exists in status quo also. All the perceived ills of polygamous marriages like dowry system, etc. exist in status quo. Women are still the weaker gender ( by law). If anything, polygamy only improve status quo by allowing for greater cohesion between the many wives(or many husbands) and thus tackling injustice in a much stronger way.
3) Finally , the proposition told you that polygamous tendency was inherent to an individual. We cited scientific research(which is very well permissible as evidence within the scope of such prepared debate). The opposition merely countered by falling back upon destruction of the institution of marriage, which by now appears to have been their only stock argument. I have already shown you how that argument falls. Clearly, this point stands in favour of the proposition, as we have been able to draw a logical connect between innate human desire and the accordance of legality to such desire.
With this ladies and gentlemen, I quickly sum up. I have shown you the major points of clash(3 in munber). In each of the clashes, I performed an extremely unbiased comparison- and sadly, despite that, the proposition has managed to clearly tackle all the perceived harms of the opposition and win all the major points of clash. This hasn’t really been a nonsensical debate. It has clearly been a case of the opposition –
a) Not understanding premise
b) Not having enough of arguments to counter
With this ladies and gentlemen, I am proud to propose.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
DLOs speech
The government’s stand in this debate is this:
1) Polygamy helps society economically
2) Polygamy will stop infidelity, aids and abusive relationships,
3) Polygamy has good effects it has on children.
4) Evolution of social and cultural traditions demands a change in laws that govern them;
5) Polygamy: nature’s way
6) Fundamental right to choice
Let me 1st begin by rebutting all the pts made by the prop...
The pm in his speech talked about how ‘polygamy will have a positive effect on the economy.’ In this he talked about the very idealistic case of rich man having many wives and poor men all marrying one wife. Let me remind the pm that India continues to be a socially backward country with low literacy rates. India continues to be a very patriarchal male dominated society. Thus the chances of 1 man marrying many women far outweigh that of 1 woman marrying many men. Imagine a not so hunky dory case in which one poor man would marry many say 5 wives. We would have him producing 20 kids instead of 4 clearly not the most idealistic situation for India. A better way to control population would be education....
About AIDS and infidelity, imagine 1 man marrying many wives... what stops the woman from being infidel.... doesn’t she want sexual variety....... Also there is no reason for Indian adults to get themselves tested for AIDS before marriage if u legalize polygamy
They are not getting themselves tested once today in the prevalent system what makes u believe Mr. prime minister that they will get themselves tested multiple times??
Since our PM loves to take examples from Hindu mythology (folk tales let me remind you) to back his points let me take one too. In the Ramayana Kaikeyi asks for her step son too be sent to vanvasa for 14 years... Was that a good effect on children of dashratha because of polygamy?
It is clear that polygamy will only lead to jealousy amongst the multiple spouses..... It will lead to many family fights over property...
. It will lead to promotion of one’s own child over the other...
Further in a society like ours a wife who bears a son would be treated much better than a wife who bears a daughter.
Moving on I hope our DPM had seen a little more of India or study our demographics a little better... While it is true that in India the number of working women is increasing in the cities it is also true that the same is not happening in our villages... The women in our villages continue to be oppressed and uneducated ... might I remind our dpm that women in our villages (which is the vast majority of total women in India) simply do not have the courage to express their sexual needs. A better solution to this problem I would say is education and I would request this house to not waste time on this proposal and to concentrate on India’s real needs and demands.
Further the dpm in his speech also mentioned that polygamy can remove Forced arranged marriages, dowry crimes, domestic violence... On the contrary I believe that polygamy will result in an increase in dowry crimes.... simply a man would become greedy and marry more times instead of once. Thus he would get dowry multiple times.
It would also increase arrange marriages for the same above mentioned reason... Again I would like to remind our dpm to look that the vast majority of our population which is uneducated, extremely poor and lives in rural areas....
Please look outside our cities Mr. Deputy Prime Minister.
Unfortunately the government in their proposal thinks that polygamy will be good for the country because “all rational people will take advantage of polygamy and exercise their right to choice in such a way which benefits them and the country...”
I wish this were true for all laws that we implement... Just check if the law makes sense to rational people and pass it….
It again brings us to the bare facts of our country… India does not have the education levels required for this law too be used responsibly…. We need to 1st make our people understand how rising population… large families are detrimental to society in general and to them in particular… Oh by the way if polygamy were legalized then according to our PM Lalu Prasad Yadav should marry multiple times(because he’s rich)……. He has 9 right now how many do you think he’ll have then sir??
Moving on to my constructive….
Problems of a polygamous society are many. In India they will include the need to restrict women's rights to force their participation. It will lead to excess men who cannot find wives and hence younger girls will be used.
Further men with many children will not possibly find time to spend with each of them.
Women in India will never get to design and choose polygamous life styles. In India, rural women have no choice but to either starve or marry (majority of them). Very few women choose to be the sixth wife of an old man if given any other opportunities.
If polygamy were legalized lawyers would have a field day. The legal issues include health insurance for partners, inheritance, divorce, custody, welfare. There are dozens more. Marriage of two people is so deeply ingrained in all our laws, the changes would be endless.
Let me conclude…
I have showed how the government’s points are absolutely non-sensical and pointless... I have also told you that in a society like India polygamy will result in various legal issues, and would further restrict the rights of women…
Thus for all these reasons I am very, very proud to oppose
1) Polygamy helps society economically
2) Polygamy will stop infidelity, aids and abusive relationships,
3) Polygamy has good effects it has on children.
4) Evolution of social and cultural traditions demands a change in laws that govern them;
5) Polygamy: nature’s way
6) Fundamental right to choice
Let me 1st begin by rebutting all the pts made by the prop...
The pm in his speech talked about how ‘polygamy will have a positive effect on the economy.’ In this he talked about the very idealistic case of rich man having many wives and poor men all marrying one wife. Let me remind the pm that India continues to be a socially backward country with low literacy rates. India continues to be a very patriarchal male dominated society. Thus the chances of 1 man marrying many women far outweigh that of 1 woman marrying many men. Imagine a not so hunky dory case in which one poor man would marry many say 5 wives. We would have him producing 20 kids instead of 4 clearly not the most idealistic situation for India. A better way to control population would be education....
About AIDS and infidelity, imagine 1 man marrying many wives... what stops the woman from being infidel.... doesn’t she want sexual variety....... Also there is no reason for Indian adults to get themselves tested for AIDS before marriage if u legalize polygamy
They are not getting themselves tested once today in the prevalent system what makes u believe Mr. prime minister that they will get themselves tested multiple times??
Since our PM loves to take examples from Hindu mythology (folk tales let me remind you) to back his points let me take one too. In the Ramayana Kaikeyi asks for her step son too be sent to vanvasa for 14 years... Was that a good effect on children of dashratha because of polygamy?
It is clear that polygamy will only lead to jealousy amongst the multiple spouses..... It will lead to many family fights over property...
. It will lead to promotion of one’s own child over the other...
Further in a society like ours a wife who bears a son would be treated much better than a wife who bears a daughter.
Moving on I hope our DPM had seen a little more of India or study our demographics a little better... While it is true that in India the number of working women is increasing in the cities it is also true that the same is not happening in our villages... The women in our villages continue to be oppressed and uneducated ... might I remind our dpm that women in our villages (which is the vast majority of total women in India) simply do not have the courage to express their sexual needs. A better solution to this problem I would say is education and I would request this house to not waste time on this proposal and to concentrate on India’s real needs and demands.
Further the dpm in his speech also mentioned that polygamy can remove Forced arranged marriages, dowry crimes, domestic violence... On the contrary I believe that polygamy will result in an increase in dowry crimes.... simply a man would become greedy and marry more times instead of once. Thus he would get dowry multiple times.
It would also increase arrange marriages for the same above mentioned reason... Again I would like to remind our dpm to look that the vast majority of our population which is uneducated, extremely poor and lives in rural areas....
Please look outside our cities Mr. Deputy Prime Minister.
Unfortunately the government in their proposal thinks that polygamy will be good for the country because “all rational people will take advantage of polygamy and exercise their right to choice in such a way which benefits them and the country...”
I wish this were true for all laws that we implement... Just check if the law makes sense to rational people and pass it….
It again brings us to the bare facts of our country… India does not have the education levels required for this law too be used responsibly…. We need to 1st make our people understand how rising population… large families are detrimental to society in general and to them in particular… Oh by the way if polygamy were legalized then according to our PM Lalu Prasad Yadav should marry multiple times(because he’s rich)……. He has 9 right now how many do you think he’ll have then sir??
Moving on to my constructive….
Problems of a polygamous society are many. In India they will include the need to restrict women's rights to force their participation. It will lead to excess men who cannot find wives and hence younger girls will be used.
Further men with many children will not possibly find time to spend with each of them.
Women in India will never get to design and choose polygamous life styles. In India, rural women have no choice but to either starve or marry (majority of them). Very few women choose to be the sixth wife of an old man if given any other opportunities.
If polygamy were legalized lawyers would have a field day. The legal issues include health insurance for partners, inheritance, divorce, custody, welfare. There are dozens more. Marriage of two people is so deeply ingrained in all our laws, the changes would be endless.
Let me conclude…
I have showed how the government’s points are absolutely non-sensical and pointless... I have also told you that in a society like India polygamy will result in various legal issues, and would further restrict the rights of women…
Thus for all these reasons I am very, very proud to oppose
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
DPM speech
Ladies and gentlemen, the deputy Prime Minister will now speak on behalf of the government.
In my speech, while elaborating on what my PM said, I will rebut most of the LO’s points and then make a couple of my own.
Specifically:
1. Evolution of social and cultural traditions demand a change in laws that govern them;
2. Polgamy: nature’s way.
Before making any reference to statements made by the LO, let the Deputy Prime Minister remind everyone that if legalised, polygamy would just simply be another option for people to resort to.
The government does not expect polygamy to be all-inclusive and universal. On the contrary, it is most likely for polygamy to be confined to the section of society that believes firstly, that it is a morally acceptable practice and secondly, that it is a feasible one. And we certainly do not believe that it will destroy monogamy.
The recent decriminalisation of homosexuality neither rendered over a billion Indians gay, nor did it destroy heterosexuality.
As you might notice, what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said, intrinsically nullifies two of the qualms that the LO raised.
Statements that:
1. Polygamy would have grave social costs, eventually leading to an increase in demand for prostitutes (in this point, the LO treats women as commodities);
2. Polygamy would have a detrimental effect on upbringing of children;
Are both just situational cases.
Let the Deputy Prime Minister remind this House of Parliament that while the Government fully understands the possible ills of polygamy, we reiterate that in cases where the ills of polygamy outweigh the benefits, rational adult citizens can chose to conform to monogamy, or remain single. And in cases where the benefits of polygamy outweigh the ills, rational adult citizens can chose to be polygamous.
Stress on the word ‘chose.’ This motion raised by the government enhances our citizens’ Right to Choice.
This brings the Deputy PM to the burden of the argument. If polygamy, practiced by those who believe it to be an acceptable as well as a feasible practice, causes no harm to anyone involved, then it is appropriate to decriminalise it.
Constructively, the Deputy PM will point to the fact that cultural and societal norms are changing. Traditionally, the stereotype of a nuclear family, almost anywhere in the world consisted of a working man, whose wife’s responsibility was to ensure the smooth functioning of the household and upbringing of children.
But these traditions arose in the social climate that existed several years ago. In those times women were not allowed to work, and people were a lot less expressive about sexual desires. In a country in which the percentage and number of working women is constantly increasing. And in a time when people are more and more expressive about their varying sexual needs. It is evident that domestic laws, such as the one governing polygamy, need to change.
Just imagine, a couple of hundred years ago, people were probably having a debate, similar to this one, on whether women should be allowed to work. Society clearly is evolving.
Going back to the Leader of Opposition’s ‘valiant’ defence of the “institution of marriage,” the Deputy Prime Minister would like to point out to this House that the “institution of marriage” is already collapsing.
Forced arranged marriages, dowry crimes, domestic violence and infidelity, among other issues brew a large amount of dissatisfaction amongst monogamous couples. Legalisation of polygamy provides people the option of finding satisfaction in another partner, if they deem it morally and practically appropriate.
The next thing the DPM would like to bring to the notice of this House with regards to polygamy is that it is completely natural. Scientific research indicates that human beings, like other mammals are meant to have more than one partner and that they desire more than one partner. So why should we combat this natural urge by imposing a legal barrier?
After having told you why polygamy can possibly aid an evolving society in attaining a marital system that satisfies their needs and that polygamy is fundamentally a natural tendency, the Deputy Prime Minister would like to again stress that the crux of the government’s argument is that polygamy will entirely be a matter of choice. There are cases in which it is a better option than monogamy. We believe that the citizens of our country, acting in their own interest will practice polygamy ONLY when it does not cause any harm to their family.
With that the Deputy Prime Minister is proud to conclude.
In my speech, while elaborating on what my PM said, I will rebut most of the LO’s points and then make a couple of my own.
Specifically:
1. Evolution of social and cultural traditions demand a change in laws that govern them;
2. Polgamy: nature’s way.
Before making any reference to statements made by the LO, let the Deputy Prime Minister remind everyone that if legalised, polygamy would just simply be another option for people to resort to.
The government does not expect polygamy to be all-inclusive and universal. On the contrary, it is most likely for polygamy to be confined to the section of society that believes firstly, that it is a morally acceptable practice and secondly, that it is a feasible one. And we certainly do not believe that it will destroy monogamy.
The recent decriminalisation of homosexuality neither rendered over a billion Indians gay, nor did it destroy heterosexuality.
As you might notice, what the Deputy Prime Minister has just said, intrinsically nullifies two of the qualms that the LO raised.
Statements that:
1. Polygamy would have grave social costs, eventually leading to an increase in demand for prostitutes (in this point, the LO treats women as commodities);
2. Polygamy would have a detrimental effect on upbringing of children;
Are both just situational cases.
Let the Deputy Prime Minister remind this House of Parliament that while the Government fully understands the possible ills of polygamy, we reiterate that in cases where the ills of polygamy outweigh the benefits, rational adult citizens can chose to conform to monogamy, or remain single. And in cases where the benefits of polygamy outweigh the ills, rational adult citizens can chose to be polygamous.
Stress on the word ‘chose.’ This motion raised by the government enhances our citizens’ Right to Choice.
This brings the Deputy PM to the burden of the argument. If polygamy, practiced by those who believe it to be an acceptable as well as a feasible practice, causes no harm to anyone involved, then it is appropriate to decriminalise it.
Constructively, the Deputy PM will point to the fact that cultural and societal norms are changing. Traditionally, the stereotype of a nuclear family, almost anywhere in the world consisted of a working man, whose wife’s responsibility was to ensure the smooth functioning of the household and upbringing of children.
But these traditions arose in the social climate that existed several years ago. In those times women were not allowed to work, and people were a lot less expressive about sexual desires. In a country in which the percentage and number of working women is constantly increasing. And in a time when people are more and more expressive about their varying sexual needs. It is evident that domestic laws, such as the one governing polygamy, need to change.
Just imagine, a couple of hundred years ago, people were probably having a debate, similar to this one, on whether women should be allowed to work. Society clearly is evolving.
Going back to the Leader of Opposition’s ‘valiant’ defence of the “institution of marriage,” the Deputy Prime Minister would like to point out to this House that the “institution of marriage” is already collapsing.
Forced arranged marriages, dowry crimes, domestic violence and infidelity, among other issues brew a large amount of dissatisfaction amongst monogamous couples. Legalisation of polygamy provides people the option of finding satisfaction in another partner, if they deem it morally and practically appropriate.
The next thing the DPM would like to bring to the notice of this House with regards to polygamy is that it is completely natural. Scientific research indicates that human beings, like other mammals are meant to have more than one partner and that they desire more than one partner. So why should we combat this natural urge by imposing a legal barrier?
After having told you why polygamy can possibly aid an evolving society in attaining a marital system that satisfies their needs and that polygamy is fundamentally a natural tendency, the Deputy Prime Minister would like to again stress that the crux of the government’s argument is that polygamy will entirely be a matter of choice. There are cases in which it is a better option than monogamy. We believe that the citizens of our country, acting in their own interest will practice polygamy ONLY when it does not cause any harm to their family.
With that the Deputy Prime Minister is proud to conclude.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
LOs speech
I as the Leader of the opposition accept the definition put forth by the government.
In this speech, I would like to rebut a few points of the government, and then move on to my constructives,
which shall be the following:
1) First, I will show you that polygamy would impose significant social costs in Indian society that would not be nullified by the benefits to the parties involved in polygamous marriages.
2)Secondly, I will show you the detrimental effects polygamy would have on upbringing of children and family life.
3)Thirdly, I will show you how detrimental polygamy would be on a person interested in monogamy.
The Government talked about the fundamental right to choice, with "a rider attached that it shouldn't harm anybody else". But here the government has been inept in proving how polygamy would be harmless to society at large. Polygamy may lead to certain benefits to the parties involved, but would be detrimental to the society. India being largely a male dominated country. There would be some exceptions, but in general, the males are the breadwinners of the family. The rich, as you would well know, would be able to afford more wives than the poor, which would lead to substantial inequality in society. I shall elaborate more on this point in my constructive.
The government has talked about the rationale behind polygamy. Well, I would agree that a system a woman who marries 2 children-wanting males would be economically beneficial to both parties, but it would not lead to a better lifestyle among the children as PM has specified. I shall show you how and why this will happen as a part of my constructive.
Thirdly, the government has talked about how sexual variety is an innate desire of every individual and how polygamy would put an end to infidelity. I would like to ask the government how would they decide the extent of one's need for "sexual variety". If a man is married to 5 women and is happy for a couple of years. Then again, he might want more variety, and would either have sex outside his marriage/s or indulge in more marriages. What is a point of a marriage then? Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by society. Polygamy will cause marriage, as an institution to lose its significance. If one could have multiple sexual partners, why would he get married to them anyways? You might as well have a society where the concept of marriage does not exist at all. Even such a society would put an end to the "vices" as specified by the PM.
Moving on to my constructives.
Firstly, Polygamy would impose significant social costs in Indian society that probably would not be nullified by the benefits to the parties involved in polygamous marriages. Given the large disparities in wealth in India, legalizing polygamy would enable wealthy men to have multiple wives which would reduce the supply of women to men of lower incomes and thus aggravate inequality. The resulting shortage of women would lead to queuing, and thus to a high age of marriage for men, which in turn would increase the demand for prostitution. The same argument would apply to polyandry and polygyny equally.
Secondly, polygamy will have serious detrimental effects on upbringing of children and family life. In polygamous households, the father invests less time in the upbringing of his children, because there are more of them. The government says that in a polygamous society, children would get the love of more than two parents. Well, let me remind the Government that a child can have only 2 biological parents. Its an obvious fact that in a competitive household, a person would love his biological child more than his step child. He/she would work more for the betterment of his/her own child. Economic disparities between two spouses of the same person will lead to jealousy among their children, and possibly hatred for their own parent, and consequential breakdown of family affection. There is also less reciprocal affection between husband and wife, because they spend less time together. Household governance under polygamy is bound to be more hierarchical than in monogamous marriage, because the household is larger and the ties of affection weaker. So the husband, as head of the household has to devise and implement means of supervision that would be unnecessary in a monogamous household.
In conclusion i would like to reiterate what all i have told you.
I have rebutted the government's points and showed how how their proposal would lead to the collapse of marriage as an institution. I have told you how polygamy would lead to more harm than benefit in society. I have also told you what serious effects polygamy can cause to the upbringing of children and family life in general.
In this speech, I would like to rebut a few points of the government, and then move on to my constructives,
which shall be the following:
1) First, I will show you that polygamy would impose significant social costs in Indian society that would not be nullified by the benefits to the parties involved in polygamous marriages.
2)Secondly, I will show you the detrimental effects polygamy would have on upbringing of children and family life.
3)Thirdly, I will show you how detrimental polygamy would be on a person interested in monogamy.
The Government talked about the fundamental right to choice, with "a rider attached that it shouldn't harm anybody else". But here the government has been inept in proving how polygamy would be harmless to society at large. Polygamy may lead to certain benefits to the parties involved, but would be detrimental to the society. India being largely a male dominated country. There would be some exceptions, but in general, the males are the breadwinners of the family. The rich, as you would well know, would be able to afford more wives than the poor, which would lead to substantial inequality in society. I shall elaborate more on this point in my constructive.
The government has talked about the rationale behind polygamy. Well, I would agree that a system a woman who marries 2 children-wanting males would be economically beneficial to both parties, but it would not lead to a better lifestyle among the children as PM has specified. I shall show you how and why this will happen as a part of my constructive.
Thirdly, the government has talked about how sexual variety is an innate desire of every individual and how polygamy would put an end to infidelity. I would like to ask the government how would they decide the extent of one's need for "sexual variety". If a man is married to 5 women and is happy for a couple of years. Then again, he might want more variety, and would either have sex outside his marriage/s or indulge in more marriages. What is a point of a marriage then? Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by society. Polygamy will cause marriage, as an institution to lose its significance. If one could have multiple sexual partners, why would he get married to them anyways? You might as well have a society where the concept of marriage does not exist at all. Even such a society would put an end to the "vices" as specified by the PM.
Moving on to my constructives.
Firstly, Polygamy would impose significant social costs in Indian society that probably would not be nullified by the benefits to the parties involved in polygamous marriages. Given the large disparities in wealth in India, legalizing polygamy would enable wealthy men to have multiple wives which would reduce the supply of women to men of lower incomes and thus aggravate inequality. The resulting shortage of women would lead to queuing, and thus to a high age of marriage for men, which in turn would increase the demand for prostitution. The same argument would apply to polyandry and polygyny equally.
Secondly, polygamy will have serious detrimental effects on upbringing of children and family life. In polygamous households, the father invests less time in the upbringing of his children, because there are more of them. The government says that in a polygamous society, children would get the love of more than two parents. Well, let me remind the Government that a child can have only 2 biological parents. Its an obvious fact that in a competitive household, a person would love his biological child more than his step child. He/she would work more for the betterment of his/her own child. Economic disparities between two spouses of the same person will lead to jealousy among their children, and possibly hatred for their own parent, and consequential breakdown of family affection. There is also less reciprocal affection between husband and wife, because they spend less time together. Household governance under polygamy is bound to be more hierarchical than in monogamous marriage, because the household is larger and the ties of affection weaker. So the husband, as head of the household has to devise and implement means of supervision that would be unnecessary in a monogamous household.
In conclusion i would like to reiterate what all i have told you.
I have rebutted the government's points and showed how how their proposal would lead to the collapse of marriage as an institution. I have told you how polygamy would lead to more harm than benefit in society. I have also told you what serious effects polygamy can cause to the upbringing of children and family life in general.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
THW legalise Polygmay
PMs speech:
We the government of India are proposing that polygamy should be legalised
Lets first define the word polygamy, it is the involvement of three or more people in a marriage where all three cannot be of the same sex. Now were going to talk to you about a few things :
1.) One is the fundamental right to choice, of course there is a rider attached that it should not harm anybody else. Also were going to talk about how it doesn’t harm anybody
2.) Also we’ll talk about how it will help the all strata of the society economically. And the basic rationale behind polygamy.
3.) Third is the fact that this will stop infidelity, aids and abusive relationships, also we will talk to you about why they are bad and how polygamy will cause reduction.
4.) Fourth will talk about the good effects it has on children.
First We’ll talk about the right that an adult should have to choose his or her partners.
All adults (apart from people with psychiatric disorders) have the mental cognitive capacity to decide what is or is not good for them. If a man or a woman wants to indulge in marriage with multiple partners who are we to stop them as long as they are not being detrimental to somebody elses existence. Now the opposition will tell you that this has an effect on Indias rich culture, but I have to ask how, polygamy in no way promotes immorality, it doesn’t even necessarily hurt cultural sentiments as polygamy as an institution does not promote any vices as such, it is a clean system functioning like any normal family, while those with a good knowledge of Indias culture Id like to remind them that Draupadi practiced polyandry and King Dashrath was a polgynist.
Next comes one of my vital points that kind of explains the rational side to polygamy. Imagine you live in a poorer part of he society, you want to have children but you don’t have the funds to support children a simple solution to this polyandry. You can have one women married to 2 or more children wanting men in this way there will be fewer children than in two separate marriages as women have a limit to how many children they can bear. Also both men will be satisfied for their want of children. The child will thus grow up In a better way with a better lifestyle.
Now in contrast with this are people who live in a richer society they can have more wives thus bearing more children than they normally would have thus leading to many children with a good lifestyle. Thus I hope I have shown you that polygamy will also solve many economic problems also in a country like India where there are more poor people than rich there would be a decrease in the rate of population growth if polygamy is allowed. The best way to look at it is this that by this logic you will also have fewer people sleeping on the streets(bums and hobos) and children will have a better and more equally divided (remember India is socialist) quality of life.
Now we’ll talk about the ills that polygamy will put an end to.
It has been proved by many psychiatric experts that sexual variety is an innate desire of every individual. Polygamy facilitates such a system where the want for sexual variety is fulfilled while staying within the sacred tie of a marriage. Infidelity will stop. That is a good thing as infidelity does unlike polygamy pose a moral harm as it promotes lies and deceit, very bad examples for children. Aids will reduce as now all your partners are known people and can be checked for HIV very easily. Also when it comes to the matter of physically abusive relationships, there is a third person involved in the relationship who can step in to solve problems and to help the victim stand up against the oppressor. Imagine the situation of Josef Fritzl had their been another man or woman this probably would not have happened. In todays cruel world where fathers are turning to their own daughters for their sexual needs, isn’t polygamy the much needed solution to all this outpouring sexual and financial tension that lies in todays world.
My next point is regarding the upbringing of children within the premises of polygamy. In a monogamous system you have only one mother and father, which means there are times when you are neglected (read up working parents). While in a polygamous premise there is a lesser chance of neglection as there are a greater number of parents. Also abusive parents would find it hard to exist as there would be a majority number of people who would oppose their practices thus reducing the chances of a childhood filled of abuse.
So lets recap what I have proved to you.
I’ve proved to you that every adult should have a right to choose how many partners he or she wants, I’ve explained the rational behind polygamy, I’ve told you about the potential it has to stop many vices in society and how it will result in a better environment for children. And so I am proud to propose.
We the government of India are proposing that polygamy should be legalised
Lets first define the word polygamy, it is the involvement of three or more people in a marriage where all three cannot be of the same sex. Now were going to talk to you about a few things :
1.) One is the fundamental right to choice, of course there is a rider attached that it should not harm anybody else. Also were going to talk about how it doesn’t harm anybody
2.) Also we’ll talk about how it will help the all strata of the society economically. And the basic rationale behind polygamy.
3.) Third is the fact that this will stop infidelity, aids and abusive relationships, also we will talk to you about why they are bad and how polygamy will cause reduction.
4.) Fourth will talk about the good effects it has on children.
First We’ll talk about the right that an adult should have to choose his or her partners.
All adults (apart from people with psychiatric disorders) have the mental cognitive capacity to decide what is or is not good for them. If a man or a woman wants to indulge in marriage with multiple partners who are we to stop them as long as they are not being detrimental to somebody elses existence. Now the opposition will tell you that this has an effect on Indias rich culture, but I have to ask how, polygamy in no way promotes immorality, it doesn’t even necessarily hurt cultural sentiments as polygamy as an institution does not promote any vices as such, it is a clean system functioning like any normal family, while those with a good knowledge of Indias culture Id like to remind them that Draupadi practiced polyandry and King Dashrath was a polgynist.
Next comes one of my vital points that kind of explains the rational side to polygamy. Imagine you live in a poorer part of he society, you want to have children but you don’t have the funds to support children a simple solution to this polyandry. You can have one women married to 2 or more children wanting men in this way there will be fewer children than in two separate marriages as women have a limit to how many children they can bear. Also both men will be satisfied for their want of children. The child will thus grow up In a better way with a better lifestyle.
Now in contrast with this are people who live in a richer society they can have more wives thus bearing more children than they normally would have thus leading to many children with a good lifestyle. Thus I hope I have shown you that polygamy will also solve many economic problems also in a country like India where there are more poor people than rich there would be a decrease in the rate of population growth if polygamy is allowed. The best way to look at it is this that by this logic you will also have fewer people sleeping on the streets(bums and hobos) and children will have a better and more equally divided (remember India is socialist) quality of life.
Now we’ll talk about the ills that polygamy will put an end to.
It has been proved by many psychiatric experts that sexual variety is an innate desire of every individual. Polygamy facilitates such a system where the want for sexual variety is fulfilled while staying within the sacred tie of a marriage. Infidelity will stop. That is a good thing as infidelity does unlike polygamy pose a moral harm as it promotes lies and deceit, very bad examples for children. Aids will reduce as now all your partners are known people and can be checked for HIV very easily. Also when it comes to the matter of physically abusive relationships, there is a third person involved in the relationship who can step in to solve problems and to help the victim stand up against the oppressor. Imagine the situation of Josef Fritzl had their been another man or woman this probably would not have happened. In todays cruel world where fathers are turning to their own daughters for their sexual needs, isn’t polygamy the much needed solution to all this outpouring sexual and financial tension that lies in todays world.
My next point is regarding the upbringing of children within the premises of polygamy. In a monogamous system you have only one mother and father, which means there are times when you are neglected (read up working parents). While in a polygamous premise there is a lesser chance of neglection as there are a greater number of parents. Also abusive parents would find it hard to exist as there would be a majority number of people who would oppose their practices thus reducing the chances of a childhood filled of abuse.
So lets recap what I have proved to you.
I’ve proved to you that every adult should have a right to choose how many partners he or she wants, I’ve explained the rational behind polygamy, I’ve told you about the potential it has to stop many vices in society and how it will result in a better environment for children. And so I am proud to propose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)