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.